Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/reviewofladysupeOOunse 


THE  LADY  SUPERIOR’S  REPLY 


“ Six  Months  in  a Convent,” 


BEING  A 

V 


VEOTDIEOAIPEQSy  ©DP  SCESS  EjHIIESo 


v i 


. 

BOSTON: 

WILLIAM  PEIRCE  AND  WEBSTER  & SOUTHARD, 
No.  9,  Cornhill, 

AND  LIGHT  & HORTON,  No.  1,  Cornhill, 
1835. 


\ * 


A 


REVIEW 


OF 


THE  LADY  SUPERIOR’S  REPLY 


TO 


BEING  A 


t^i!sriS)S©^is,H®sr  ©if  sees®  sbumejo 


BOSTON: 

WILLIAM  PEIRCE  AND  WEBSTER  & SOUTHARD, 
No.  9,  Comhill, 

AND  LIGHT  & HORTON,  No.  1,  Comhill, 

1835. 


F 

7V- 


4 

Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1835,  by 
WEBSTER  & SOUTHARD, 

In  the  Clerk’s  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


4* 

BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 

CHESTNUT  HILL,  MA  021  67 


rJl)N  l 3 1989 


REVIEW,  & o. 


f 

— i ■ ' \ \ 

The  public  have  been  lately  much  interested  by  the  publi- 
cation of  two  works,  entitled  respectively,  “ Six  Months  in  a 
Convent,”  by  Miss  Reed,  and  an  “Answer”  to  the  same  by 
the  Lady  Superior.  These  books  flatly  contradict  each  other 
in  very  many  particulars.  On  the  one  side,  the  ignorant , 
low-lived , artful  and  hypocritical  domestic , (for  the  names 
bestowed  upon  her  by  the  Catholics  convey  all  these  ideas) 
makes  statements  not  very  flattering  to  the  good  sense  and 
piety  of  the  inmates  of  the  Convent,  and  in  one  instance,  in- 
deed, charging  them  with  a sort  of  Morganic  attempt  to  carry 
her  off ; while  on  the  other,  the  polished , dignified  and  lady- 
like head  of  the  Institution  reiterates  hardly  anything  in  an- 
swer to  these  allegations,  but  “ liar”  11  imposter ,”  “ knave!” 
With  minds  excited  by  these  abusive  epithets,  how  can  any 
one  personally  interested  in  the  parties  come  to  an  impartial 
conclusion  ? Under  these  circumstances,  it  appeared  to  us  that 
it  might  be  interesting  to  the  public  to  hear  the  opinions  of  indi- 
viduals, who  have  not  the  least  acquaintance  with  the  Lady 
Superior,  the  Nuns,  Miss  Reed,  or  the  Committee  of  Publica- 
tion.— When  an  affray  is  carried  on,  it  is  not  those  who  mingle 
in  the  battle  and  partake  the  conflict,  who  can  form  the  most 
correct  idea  on  which  side  justice  rests,  or  how  the  day  is  likely 
to  result.  It  is  only  he  that  from  a distance  views  the  scene  of 
war,  that  stands  aloof  from  the  hurry  and  bustle  that  may  en- 


4 


list  his  feelings,  who  has  an  opportunity  to  observe  what  blows 
are  given  in  fair  contest,  and  what  thrusts  are  dishonorably 
made.  Such  an  individual  is  in  a situation  to  observe  with 
impartiality  the  conduct  of  the  combatants ; and  it  is  with  a 
spirit  unfriendly  to  neither  side,  but  with  a disposition  to  dis- 
cover and  embrace  the  truth,  that  we  now  approach  the  exam- 
ination of  this  subject. 

We  have,  for  a long  time  previous  to  the  destruction  of  the 
Convent,  been  deeply  interested  in  the  discussions  between  the 
Catholics  and  Protestants.  As  American  citizens  ardently  at- 
tached to  our  country  and  her  institutions,  — to  that  religious 
freedom  which  we  have  ever  enjoyed  — and  proud  of  the  gen- 
eral intelligence  of  our  countrymen,  with  their  high  character 
for  religion  and  virtue,  we  have  trembled  in  view  of  the  evils 
of  which  eminent  men  have  continually  warned  us.  Yet  we 
have  hoped  that  they  might  be  deceived  — that  they  looked 
upon  the  dark  side  of  the  picture  — that  the  dangers  which 
threatened  us  were  the  creations  of  the  imagination  rather  than 
sober  realities,  and  that  Catholicism  in  the  nineteenth  century 
was  entirely  different  in  its  spirit,  precepts  and  practices,  from 
that  faith  which  established  the  Inquisition,  considered  igno- 
rance the  mother  of  devotion,  and  employed  fire  and  sword  as 
proper  instruments  of  conversion.  The  cries  of  intolerance, 
fanaticism  and  persecution  which  have  been  raised  by  many 
conductors  of  the  press  against  those  eminent  divines  who  have 
been  lately  interested  in  this  subject,  are  too  contemptible  to 
have  any  influence  with  the  thinking  portion  of  the  communi- 
ty ; and  the  charge  brought,  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
against  thousands  of  the  people  of  Massachusetts  of  “adminis- 
tering to  the  gloomy  fanaticism  which  resulted  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Convent  of  the  Ursulines  at  Mount  Benedict,”  and 
which  was  afterward  rewarded  by  an  invitation  to  a public 
dinner,  will  certainly  produce  no  very  favorable  impression  as 
to  the  liberality  or  veracity  of  some  of  the  friends  of  the 
Catholics. 


5 


As  inquirers  after  the  truth,  the  appearance  of  “ Six  Months 
in  a Convent  ” was  hailed  by  us  with  pleasure.  Knowing 
nothing  of  Miss  Reed,  or  of  the  circumstances  connected  with 
her  departure  from  the  Convent,  except  from  a few  vague  ru- 
mors, to  which  we  attached  no  importance,  we  thought  that 
light  might  be  thrown  upon  the  Institution,  and  we  hoped,  for 
the  honor  of  the  age,  that  the  practices  of  Catholicism,  many 
of  them  foolish  and  humiliating,  were  not  observed  there. 
Such,  however,  if  the  book  be  true,  is  not  the  fact.  The  part 
written  by  Miss  R.  is  a narration  of  ceremonies,  indicative,  to 
say  the  least,  of  no  great  elevation  of  mind,  together  with  in- 
cidents and  conversations  occurring  in  her  presence,  which, 
whatever  impression  they  may  produce  as  to  the  piety  of  the 
inmates,  certainly  represent  in  no  very  enviable  light,  the  good 
sense  of  the  Bishop  and  Superior.  Some  of  the  conversations 
are  almost  too  absurd  to  be  credited,  particularly  that  respecting 
the  “Cholera,”  and  the  “Yankees,”  on  pages  117,  118,  and 
134 ; and  however  good  the  authority,  we  could  hardly 
“ screw  our  credulity  up  to  the  sticking  place  for  this  tastefully 
conceived  tale,”  had  we  not  heard  something  similar  from  an 
entirely  different  source,  some  ten  months  since.  These  re- 
marks of  the  Bishop  to  which  we  refer  are  as  foolish  and  ab- 
surd as  any  in  the  book,  and  as  we  have  other  authority  for 
believing  them,  than  that  of  Miss  R.  we  are  (to  imitate  the  ele- 
gant language  of  the  introduction  to  the  Reply)  sufficiently 
gullible  to  swallow  the  remainder,  provided  we  discover  no 
gross  inconsistencies  or  contradictions. 

The  style  of  the  book  is  unaffected  — the  statements  are 
those  of  a school-girl,  telling  what  happened  in  her  presence, 
and  do  not  appear  like  the  fabrications  of  an  1 artful  and  de- 
signing person,’  as  she  is  represented  ; for  no  very  artful 
person  would  state  such  simple  things  in  the  simple  manner 
that  she  has  done.  She  tells  no  wonderful  stories,  throws  out 
no  very  horrible  insinuations,  and  doubtless  the  lovers  of  the 
marvellous,  were  wofully  disappointed  on  reading  her  produc- 
tion. To  be  sure,  much  has  been  said  respecting  her  insinua- 
*1 


6 


(ions  of  death , dungeons  and  poison , and  it  would  be  strange 
if  such  things  did  not  occur  to  the  mind  of  a “ romantic  young 
girl,”  as  even  her  enemies  sometimes  represent  her.  But  pro- 
bably her  readers  will  make  all  due  allowances  for  the  influ- 
ence of  her  imagination,  and  perhaps  not  wholly  condemn  her, 
if  she  be  romantic  or  affected , for  if  to  be  romantic  is  so  horri- 
ble a crime,  woe  be  to  the  rising  generation  ! 

The  Introduction  to  the  work  is  from  an  able  pen,  giving 
some  account  of  the  history  of  Miss  Reed,  her  correspondence 
with  Judge  Fay,  with  the  proceedings  of  the  Boston  Investiga- 
ting Committee,  &c.  and  is  written  in  far  more  gentlemanly 
language,  and  in  better  temper  than  the  Introduction  to  the 
“ Reply.” 

We  read  “Six  Months  in  a Convent,”  carefully,  and  were 
unable  to  discover  in  it  inconsistency  or  contradictions.  Had 
we  found  a single  falsehood,  we  would  have  thrown  it  aside, 
or  had  we  discovered  inconsistencies  in  the  statements  of  the 
Committee  of  Publication,  (the  “four  and  twenty  elders  ” of  the 
Reply,)  which  have  since  appeared,  or  had  we  been  informed 
that  they  were  not  men  of  highly  respectable  standing,  and 
unimpeachable  character  — of  as  good  standing  and  character 
as  the  “ liberal  portion  of  the  Legislature  ” even,  we  would 
have  discarded  the  book  notwithstanding  its  consistency ; 
because,  from  our  knowledge  of  many  of  the  friends  of  the 
Convent,  and  our  high  opinion  of  the  character  of  the  Superior 
obtained  from  them,  we  could  not  but  have  taken  her  word  in 
preference  to  that  of  Miss  R.  on  all  points,  the  truth  of  which 
can  only  be  learned  from  their  assertions,  and  must  from  the 
nature  of  the  case  depend  on  their  individual  veracity.  But 
there  are  inconsistencies  in  the  testimony  of  the  Superior  in 
court  and  some  of  her  subsequent  statements,  which  we  are 
unable  to  reconcile,  and  until  they  are  explained,  Miss  R.,  in 
our  opinion,  is  more  worthy  of  credit. 

' As  we  before  remarked,  we  perused  the  work  attentively, 
and  could  not  well  disbelieve  it,  because  of  its  consistency , its 
unassuming  character,  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  written,  and 


7 


its  apparent  sincerity.  In  these  respects,  we  think  it  appears 
to  advantage,  — both  the  Introduction  and  the  Narrative,  when 
compared  with  the  “ Reply,”  and  their  opponents,  we  doubt 
not,  would  have  made  a more  favorable  impression  on  the 
public,  had  they  imitated  the  spirit  of  “ Six  Months  in  a Con- 
vent,” and  dealt  less  in  abusive  epithets. 

It  would  be  a very  happy  circumstance,  if  this  book  could 
be  proved  false,  and  the  Superior  would  hardly  feel  greater 
pleasure  than  ourselves,  should  she  disprove  it ; not  that  it 
would  be  a pleasure  to  us  that  the  character  of  any  individual 
should  be  injured,  or  that  Miss  R.  should  be  proved  to  have 
acted  wrong  ; but  because  we  consider  it  better  that  one  indi- 
vidual should  have  falsified  than  that  an  imputation  should  be 
cast  on  the  character  of  a whole  Community.  We  wish  that 
those  who  have  been  injured,  may  be  redressed,  and  we  hope, 
for  the  honor  and  welfare  of  our  country,  it  may  appear  that 
the  miserable  superstitions  of  Catholicism  have  been  done 
away  with  in  the  Ursuline  Community.  Such  has  been  the 
belief  of  many  ; and  were  it  the  fact,  it  would  remove  the 
fears  of  a multitude,  and  create  a hope  that  an  influence  might 
go  forth  from  that  institution  that  should  elevate  the  Catholics 
in  this  country,  morally  and  intellectually,  to  a level  with  other 
denominations. 

We  believed  that  this  book  would  be  dispioved.  Such  was 
the  opinion  of  the  friends  of  the  Convent  generally,  and 
we  placed  great  confidence  in  their  representations.  After 
the  appearance  of  the  “Answer,”  it  was  stated  by  many  that 
it  was  a complete  vindication,  and  we  took  it  up  with  pleasure, 
but  have  been  disappointed. 

In  a discussion  of  this  kind,  the  parties  interested  should  avoid 
all  misrepresentations  and  sophistry,  and  abide  by  facts,  if  they 
would  elicit  truth  or  obtain  credit  with  the  public.  Miss  Reed 
and  her  friends  have  ‘ used  all  mildness,’  and  thrown  out  no 
insinuations  as  to  the  character  or  occupation  of  their  oppo- 
nents. The  ‘Answer,’  on  the  contrary,  is  filled  with  abuse,  and 


8 


wherever  it  is  abusive  or  falsifies,  is  a fit  subject  of  ridicule  and 
severe  remark. 

We  open  the  book,  and  the  first  sentence  that  meets  us  is  a 
beautiful  illustration  of  the  style  of  argument  used  by  some  of 
the  very  respectable  and  dignified  opponents  of  Miss  R.  We 
are  gravely  told  that  “ a lie  will  travel  many  leagues,  while 
truth  is  putting  on  his  boots  ! ” Really  if  the  author  would 
not  consider  it  an  insult,  we  would  call  him  a gentleman  ; 
for  the  elegant  language  in  which  he  clothes  his  ideas,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  highly  appropriate  manner  of  commencing  the 
defence  of  a community  of  pious  females,  is  worthy  of  some 
distinguished  mark  of  respect.  Were  we  in  the  situation  of 
the  Superior,  we  should  cry  1 save  us  from  our  friends,’  for 
certainly  no  passage  in  the  English  language,  not  grossly 
vulgar,  could  produce  greater  disgust  in  the  mind  of  the  disin- 
terested reader  than  this,  and  Mrs.  Moffat’s  most  bitter  enemy, 
could  have  wished  no  other  beginning  to  the  Introduction.  It 
is  calculated  to  produce  prejudice  at  the  very  outset  — to  destroy 
all  confidence  in  the  writer  — and  will  have  that  effect  with 
every  one,  except  him  who  considers  such  language  a suitable 
reply  to  a “ liar  and  imposter.” 

u Coming  events  cast  their  shadows  before,”  says  the  writer, 
respecting  the  Introduction  to  Miss  R.’s  book.  Shall  we  say 
this  of  his  own  ? He  could  not  have  paid  Miss  R.’s  narrative 
a higher  compliment ; we  will  not  do  the  Superior  so  great 
injustice.  With  respect  to  the  £ horns  of  a dilemma’  on  which 
he  would  hang  the  Committee,  we  say,  with  all  due  deference 
to  his  superior  legal  knowledge,  1 The  prisoner  is  to  be  believed 
innocent  Until  proved  guilty;’  when  proof  is  brought,  they 
renounce  their  belief ; till  then,  they  run  the  risk,  with  him , of 
being  “ delivered  over  to  the  class  of  incurables  ” without  the 
least  fear  of  mistake. 

We  cannot  go  into  all  the  particulars  mentioned  in  the 
Preliminary  Remarks.  We  can  only  give  a very  general  idea 
of  them,  and  state  a few  of  the  objects,  which  the  writer  has 
in  view.  He  undertakes  to  prove  Miss  R.  a liar  — that  her 


9 


book  was  issued  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  character  of 
the  Ursulines  — exasperating  the  public  mind  against  Catho- 
lics — persecuting  them  through  the  medium  of  popular 
opinion,  and  driving  them  from  the  country,  as  enemies  of 
true  religion  and  liberty  ! He  then  launches  out  boldly 
against  editors  of  religious  and  secular  papers  for  mentioning 
Miss  R.  as  a personal  acquaintance  — attacks  at  random  large 
bodies  of  Christians — passes  high  enconiums  upon  the  Inves- 
tigating Committee — visits  New  York  to  complain  of  the  press 
in  that  city,  and  returns  to  find  fault  with  counsel  paid  to 
defend  a cause,  for  assuming  a position  consistent  with  law 
and  evidence.  Not  content  with  this,  he  insinuates  that  the 
Committee  of  Publication  — the  1 sage  elders,’  — are  hypo- 
crites in  religion  ; speaks  sneeringly  of  their  “ prayerful 
consideration  of  their  duty,”  and  compares  the  part  they  take 
in  connection  with  Miss  R.  to  that  of  the  chorus  in  the  ancient 
drama ; with  what  propriety,  we  cannot  perceive,  save  from 
mere  contrast,  as  one  might  compare  his  own  production,  with 
that  of  any  one  gentlemanly  in  his  language.  He  then  prom- 
ises to  prove  that  the  “ avowed  design  of  the  publication  of 
Miss  R.’s  narrative  was  not  the  true  one,  but  that  it  was 
merely  a scaffolding  to  the  introduction , which  was  designed 
to  write  down  Catholicity  and  increase  the  hatred  and  intol- 
erance, already  existing  on  the  part  of  Protestants,  towards 
Catholic  Christians  ; ” for  which  charge  the  Protestants  will  no 
doubt,  be  much  obliged  to  him.  Where  he  has  proved  it, 
however,  we  have  not  been  able  to  discover.  The  writer 
might  as  well  have  omitted  all  accusations  and  insinuations 
of  this  kind.  They  can  do  him  or  his  cause  no  good , and 
may  do  harm.  The  public  have,  for  a long  time,  been  sick 
of  them.  Together  with  flattering  notices  of  the  Catholic 
population  of  this  city,  of  whose  virtue  and  intelligence  one 
would  think  the  less  said  the  better,  — with  cries  of  fanaticism 
and  intolerance  raised  against  eminent  clergymen  of  various 
denominations,  they  have  been  the  essence  of  innumerable 
1 editorials,’  since  August  last,  and  were  even  brought  up  from 


10 


their  obscurity  to  add  to  the  laurels  of  members  of  our  Legisla- 
ture. He  should  have  omitted  everything  of  this  kind  from  a 
love  of  truth  and  justice,  had  he  not  been  desirous  of  producing 
a favorable  impression  upon  the  people  of  this  city  and 
vicinity. 

But  the  author  of  the  Preliminary  Remarks  and  his  friends 
are  inconsistent.  They  do  Miss  R.’s  intellect  great  honor,  and 
there  are  but  few  fathers  who  would  not  be  proud  of  such  abil- 
ity in  a favorite  child.  If  we  believe  their  statements,  and 
without  doubt,  they  hope  we  may,  this  weak-minded  fanatical 
female  is  not  so  very  weak-minded  after  all.  It  appears  that, 
years  ago,  when  but  a child,  she  conceived  the  magnificent 
design,  not  of  creating  a prejudice  against  the  Catholics  mere- 
ly , not  of  being  simply  11  an  humble  instrument  in  the  hands 
of  God,  of  destroying  the  institution  at  Mount  Benedict ; ” no, 
this  was  a mere  cipher  in  the  great  work  before  her.  But 
while  her  equals  in  age  were  engaged  in  the  sports  of  youth, 
and  carried  away  by  its  vanities,  her  thoughts  were  upon  a 
higher  object ; she  formed  a plan,  the  execution  of  which 
would  immortalize  her  — a design  without  a parallel  in  all  his- 
tory — she  aimed  at  the  extinction  of  Catholicism  in  the  United 
States.  Is  there  any  weak-mindedness  here?  — And  how  has 
she  succeeded  ? In  a very  few  years,  during  which  she  re- 
mained in  obscurity  — never  appearing  before  the  public — - 
never  exciting  the  passions  of  men  by  writings  or  addresses 
(except  by  her  Manuscript  privately  circulated,  according  to  her 
enemies,  in  which  however,  her  friends  discover  no  great  abili- 
ty,) in  this  very  short  time  she  influences  the  minds  of,  we  had 
almost  said  “hundreds  of  thousands  of  the  people  of  this 
state”  to  such  a degree,  that  in  obedience  to  her  mysterious  in- 
fluence, the  Convent  is  burned,  helpless  women  and  children 
are  driven  from  their  beds  at  midnight,  and  the  perpetrators 
escape  justice.  After  this,  instead  of  being  indicted  as  prin- 
cipal or  accessary  in  the  affair,  she  goes  entirely  free  from 
all  public  reproach  — gains  the  good  opinion  of  many  tal- 
ented, estimable,  pious  men  — men  not  easily  duped,  — ap- 


11 


pears  to  them,  notwithstanding  their  great  penetration,  a very 
interesting,  amiable  and  intelligent  young  lady,  and  even  makes 
them  instruments  in  her  hands  for  the  promotion  of  her  last 
great  work,  — the  extinction  of  Catholicism  in  the  United 
States.  What  a wonderful  young  lady  this  ! what  a weak- 
minded  fanatical  female  ! Truly  the  Superior  has  no  con- 
temptible foe  to  deal  with  ; and  from  what  we  have  seen  of 
the  contest  thus  far,  we  would  advise  her  by  all  means  to  re- 
treat from  it  immediately,  ere  she  lose  the  few  laurels  that  are 
left  her.  Hereafter  to  have  been  born,  or  to  have  lived  in  the 
humble  and  despised  Milk  Row,  will  be  no  great  reproach  ; 
and  this  unassuming  avenue  may  equal  in  reputation  some 
localities  near  it,  if  it  do  not  remove  some  small  share  of  that  dis- 
grace which  was  to  have  clung  to  our  country  through  all  time, 
and  caused  the  traveller,  when  visiting  Bunker’s  height  in 
future  ages,  to  drop  a tear  of  sorrow  over  the  ruins  of  our 
national  honor. 

But  to  be  serious.  The  Superior  and  her  counsel  must  be  con- 
sistent in  their  statements  respecting  Miss  Reed,  if  they  would 
not  forfeit  all  credit.  If  they  assert  that  she  is  a domestic,  let 
them  abide  by  the  assertion  — if,  that  she  is  a romantic,  foolish 
young  girl,  let  them  abide  by  it,  — if  that  she  is  a weak-mind- 
ed or  an  artful  fanatic  or  an  imposter,  let  them  abide  by  it. 
But  so  long  as  they  present  her  in  such  a “questionable  shape,” 
— give  her  such  variety  of  form  and  character  — make  her  a 
complete  moral  intellectual  and  physical  Proteus,  we  cannot 
but  mistrust  that  they  confound  her  with  some  of  those  who 
escaped  from  the  convent  before  or  after  she  did.  Let  them, 
then,  bring  her  forward  in  some  one  of  the  innumerable  forms 
in  which  they  have  hitherto  presented  her  and  keep  her  there, 
for  it  is  as  difficult  to  form  any  distinct  idea  of  her  now,  as  to 
discover  the  color  of  the  fabled  chamelion  ; — thus  far  she  is 
but  a general  idea  of  woman. 

We  pass  hastily  over  some  statements  of  the  writer,  which  the 
careful  and  attentive  reader  will  easily  explain,  thatare  comment- 
ed upon  at  some  length,  and  by  slight  misrepresentations,  create  a 


12 


doubt  as  to  Miss  R.’s  veracity.  The  writer  cannot  imagine  what 
makes  Miss  R.  a person  of  so  much  interest  and  consequence. 
We  will  inform  him.  Some  years  since  she  was  mentioned 
publicly  as  a wonderful  instance  of  conversion  to  the  Catholic 
faith.  She  possessed,  if  we  may  believe  them,  many  accom- 
plishments, sufficient  to  create  an  interest  in  any  young  lady  ; 
she  associated,  for  some  time,  with  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  and 
the  Catholic  clergy,  and  was  for  several  months  under  the  in- 
struction of  the  accomplished  Lady  Superior.  The  learned 
counsel  appears  to  be  well  versed  in  1 old  sayings.’  Did  he 
ever  hear  that  a man  was  known  by  the  company  he  kept  ? 
Did  he  ever  read  that  the  companion  of  wise  men,  should  be 
wise  ? If  so,  can  he  not  see  why  Miss  R.  should  be  a person 
of  some  consequence  ? 

u The  Committee  of  Publication,”  says  the  writer,  “ have  the 
hardihood  to  say,  that  Judge  Fay  has  obliged  them  to  pub- 
lish certain  notes”  Why  does  not  the  writer  or  the  Judge 
deny  the  assertion  ? 

Again,  the  writer  says,  11  it  was  for  the  interest  of  the  Ursu- 
lines  that  the  Narrative  should  be  published,  and  they  were 
not  opposed  to  its  publication.”  Indeed  ! It  must  have  been  a 
pleasure  then  ; and  how  do  they  express  this  pleasure  ? If 
they  pour  out  such  rancor  and  venom  in  their  good  natured  mo- 
ments, we  hope  we  may  never  come  in  their  way  when  in  an 
angry  mood. 

As  to  the  insinuation  respecting  11  the  wages  of  iniquity,” 
(about  which  the  public  were  satisfied  long  ago  by  the  publish- 
ers,) and  the  comparison  of  Miss  R.  to  Titus  Oates,  Joanna 
Southcote  and  Matthias  the  Prophet,  we  only  say  that  they 
are  excellent  specimens  of  the  candor  and  argument  of  the 
learned  counsel.  They  reason,  if  we  understand  them,  in  this 
way : — Matthias  the  Prophet  was  charged  with  murder  ; 
therefore  Miss  R.  is  a liar ! Q,.  E.  D. 

With  respect  to  the  remark  at  the  top  of  the  12th  page 
of  the  Preliminaries;  “that  Miss  R.  when  with  the  Cath- 
olics pretended  to  fear  her  friends,  and  when  she  had  re- 


13 


turned  to  them  pretended  to  be  in  fear  of  the  Catholics  ; ” it 
appears  to  us  very  natural  that  she  should  fear  her  friends 
and  the  Catholics,  when  she  had  done  anything  that  wounded 
the  feelings  of  either.  But  what  was  this  fear  of  her  friends? 
Not  the  fear  that  they  would  take  her  life,  or  use  any  violence 
towards  her.  Would  a father  take  the  life  of  his  own  child, 
for  a difference  in  religious  opinion  ? We  know  of  but  one 
priesthood  in  this  country,  against  whom  it  was  ever  insinuated 
that  they  recommended  any  violence  in  these  matters  ; and 
one  might,  perhaps,  reasonably  suppose  that  the  parents  of 
“ a young  lady  brought  up  in  a very  loose  manner  ” could 
not  be  very  particular  about  religious  matters.  This  fear,  if 
we  riorhtlv  understand  it,  was  only  the  sensation  that  every 
one  would  experience  at  appearing  before  a father,  who  had 
been  disobeyed,  or  relations,  whose  advice  they  had  neglected, 
and  found  themselves  in  trouble.  As  to  her  fear  of  the  Cath- 
olics, it  appears  to  us  very  wonderf  ul , that  an  1 ignorant,  weak- 
minded  female/'  who  had  heard  horrible  stories  of  the  prac- 
tices of  the  Romish  church,  and  had  always  lived  in  a country 
where  they  were  generally  believed,  should  be  in  fear , when 
she  had  subjected  herself  to  the  hatred  of  any  portion  of  that 
church ! ! ! Whether  the  Catholics  ever  resort  to  force  here,  we 
know  not ; but  that  they  have  considerable  influence , is  evi- 
dent from  circumstances  connected  with  the  elopement  and 
return  to  the  convent,  of  Mrs.  Mary  St.  John,  if  she  were  not 
insane.  As  to  her  insanity,  there  is  a difference  of  opinion. 
At  the  trial  of  one  of  the  rioters  m Dec.  last,  the  counsel  for 
the  defence  wished  to  introduce  testimony  upon  this  point, 
which  was  ruled  out  by  the  Court  as  irrevelant,  and  very  prop- 
erly. It  was  stated  at  the  lime,  that  this  testimony  was  suffi- 
cient to  prove  that  she  was  not  insane.  And  if  we  have  not 
been  misinformed,  an  individual,  well  qualified  to  judge  cor- 
rectly upon  this  subject,  was  acquainted  with  facts  which  would 
go  far  to  establish  the  point.  Any  man  of  common  sense,  who 
shall  read  the  Report  of  her  evidence,  will  doubt  that  she  was 
insane;  and  if  she  were,  it  was  the  most  singular  case  that 
2 


14 


ever  happened,  and  must  have  been  one  of  great  interest  to 
the  attending  Physician  : for  we  doubt  whether  its  parallel  can 
be  found  in  the  history  of  this  malady.  She  remembers  per- 
fectly well,  incidents  that  happened  and  conversations  that  were 
held,  which  were  of  no  importance,  — not  affecting  the  character 
of  the  Ursulines : but  when  questioned  respecting  statements 
injurious  to  the  Superior  and  others,  she  can  recollect  nothing : 
her  memory  seems  to  have  come  and  gone  very  favorably ! 
Will  the  Physician  of  the  house  certify  on  oath  that  she  was 
insane?  And  if  so,  will  he  produce  a similar  case?  It  is  im- 
portant that  this  fact  be  ascertained,  because  it  will  have  some 
influence  upon  the  opinion  entertained  of  Miss  R.  If  Mrs.  St. 
John  were  not  insane,  she  adds  one  to  the  number  of  those 
who  eloped  in  consequence  of  dissatisfaction  or  improper  treat- 
ment, and  this  fact  adds  to  the  probability  that  Miss  R.’s  stories 
are  not  entirely  false.  Besides,  if  this  be  the  case,  it  may  ap- 
pear singular  to  some  how  the  Bishop  could  so  easily  persuade 
a person  in  her  right  mind  to  return  to  a place  from  which  she 
had  just  escaped.* 

We  cannot  discover  that  the  statement  concerning  Miss 
Shea,  proves  that  Miss  R.  has  slandered  the  Convent,  or  see 
the  propriety  of  blaming  her  for  getting  her  friends  to  sign 
certificates  to  fortify  her  reputation  for  truth,  and  then  finding 
fault  because  she  did  not  increase  their  number.  Neither  can 
we  discover  anything  very  amusing  in  the  story  that  Dr.  Thomp- 
son tells,  except  the  fact  that  the  Dr.  should,  in  this  instance, 
attach  such  dark  and  awful  meaning  to  an  expression,  which, 
if  he  have  an  extensive  practice,  he  must  hear  every  day  of 
his  life.  The  fact  is,  if  we  credit  the  Dr.  and  others,  Miss  R. 
does  everything  significantly.  She  speaks  of  the  Superior 
significantly;  — climbs  a fence  significantly; — sprains  her 


* In  Miss  Alden’s  first  letter  it  is  stated:  “ I saw  Mrs.  Mary  St.  John,  (the 
deranged  person  who  eloped,)  who  told  me  the  particulars  of  her  going.” 
No  one  could  know  the  particulars  of  her  escape  but  herself,  as  it  was  private. 
Why  could  she  not  state  them  in  court  ? Is  this  an  additional  proof  of  in- 
sanity ? 


15 


wrist  significantly,  and  cries  out  in  presence  of  Mr.  Hallet  and 
others  significantly,  and  Mr.  Hallet  runs  to  the  Advocate 
Office  to  give  it  insertion  in  his  paper.  It  is  to  such  methods 
that  they  resort  to  excite  predjudice  against  Miss  Reed. 

On  the  20th  page  of  the  Preliminary  Remarks,  are  the  fol- 
lowing questions.  “ Did  any  of  Mr.  K.’s  family  see  the  Con- 
vent men  searching  the  canal  with  long  poles,  ( the  18 th  of  Jan . 
be  it  remembered  ? ) Will  Mrs  G.  confirm  the  statement  about 
the  wounds  and  the  frozen  feet  7 ” We  know  not  on  what 
day  Miss  Reed  left  the  Convent,  but  the  Superior  could  not 
have  chosen  a better  day  if  she  wished  to  make  Miss  R.’s  ac- 
count of  the  circumstances  connected  with  her  escape,  proba- 
ble. The  “ Eighteenth  of  Jan .”  is  mentioned  as  a kind  of 
proof  that  the  canal  could  not  have  been  searched  with 
poles.  We  were  absent  from  the  city  at  that  time,  but  not  so 
far  from  it,  that  the  weather  in  the  two  places  would  differ 
much.  On  referring  to  memoranda,  we  find  that  from  the 
14th  to  the  21st  of  Jan.  the  thermometer,  at  noon,  ranged  from 
45°  to  57°.  Could  there  have  been  any  great  difficulty  in 
searching  the  canal  with  poles?  But  if  it  was  so  warm , how 
could  her  feet  be  frozen  7 We  refer  to  the  Memoranda  ; “Jan. 
18th  1832,  Some  Rain  /” — Can  any  delicate  female,  who 
has  remained  within  doors  several  months,  walk  across  a field 
on  a rainy  day  in  winter  without  having  cold  feet?  Would 
any  one,  subject  to  chilblains,  run  the  risk,  with  a pair  of  thick 
boots  7 (which,  probably  Miss  R.  did  not  wear,)  Now  we 
would  ask  the  author  of  the  Remarks,  or  his  friend,  Dr. 
Thompson,  if  people  never  freeze  their  ears,  or  any  other 
member,  without  being  conscious  of  it  at  the  time  ? — and 
also,  whether  people  never  think  they  have  frozen  their  ears  or 
their  feet  when  it  is  not  the  case?  — Has  Miss  Reed’s  veracity 
suffered  here? 

On  the  21st  page,  Miss  C.  F.  Alden  is  introduced,  for  the 
purpose  of  discrediting  Miss  R.  She  is  represented  as  a person 
of  character,  well  known  in  this  vicinity,  and  is  appealed  to 


16 


with  a sort  of  triumph.  We  know  nothing  of  her,  except  what 
we  learn  from  the  book  before  us,  and  from  two  letters  written 
by  herself;  one  of  which  we  insert  that  our  readers  may  form 
their  own  opinion  of  her,  from  her  manner  of  expresssing  her- 
self, and  from  the  authority  on  which  she  bestows  certain  epi- 
thets upon  Miss  R. 

Belfast  September  14 th,  1834. 

Sir:  — I will  now  proceed  to  give  you  all  the  information  in  my  possession 
of  that  abandoned  girl,  who  calls  herself  Miss  Reed.  Abandoned  I think 
she  must  be,  who  has  lost  all  regard  for  truth. 

I have  never  yet  heard  one  report  coming  from  her,  respecting  the  Ursuline 
Community,  but  the  blackest,  foulest  falsehood.  I may  not  have  heard  them 
all.  Perhaps  it  would  be  well  to  enumerate  a few  — such  as  their  inhuman 
treatment  of  the  sick.  As  I said  in  my  first  letter,  a more  false  statement,  con- 
cerning that  Community,  cannot  be  uttered. 

As  I was  treated  there,  so  were  others,  and  that  was  with  extreme  tender- 
ness. If  any  were  sick,  they  always  had  a physician  to  prescribe,  and  an  ex- 
perienced infirmarian  to  attend  them.  This  same  sister  Mary  Magdalene,  of 
whose  sufferings  she  has  said  so  much,  had  two  own  sisters  to  attend  her,  in 
her  last  illness,  one  of  whom  related  to  me  every  circumstance,  together  with 
the  false  statements  of  that  abandoned  girl. 

I am  not  personally  acquainted  with  Miss  Reed,  having  left  there  a.  few 
months  previous  to  her  entrance  My  name  there  was  Mrs  Mary  Angela. 
Mrs.  Mary  Francis  I knew  well;  we  were  there  at  the  same  time.  I did  not 
know  but  she  was  happy  there;  she  never  told  me  to  the  contrary.  She  was 
a Miss  Kennedy  from  New  York;  she  is  at  present  a Sister  of  Charity  in  Balti- 
more. Miss  Reed  remained  at  the  convent  six  months  on  charity;  com- 
menced her  studies  there  between  two  and  three  years  since.  Her  music  she 
commenced  there.  And  now  where  is  she?  — a teacher  of  female  youth , 
in  what  is  called  a respectable  school  ! 

You  may  make  what  use  you  please  of  either  of  these  letters;  I leave  it  en- 
tirely to  your  better  judgment. 

With  much  respect,  I remain,  &c. 

CAROLINE  F.  ALDEN. 

They  must  be  engaged  in  a desperate  cause  who  find  it 
necessary  to  send  to  Belfast  in  Maine,  for  a second-hand  ac- 
count of  Miss  R.’s  character ; and  that  too  from  a person 
knowing  nothing  of  it,  of  herself  \ and  possessed  of  no  more 
discretion,  (we  will  not  say  regard  for  decency)  than  to  use  such 
language  in  a communication  which  she  knows  is  to  be  made 
public.  We  would  gladly  leave  her  here,  without  any  fear  that 
her  assertions  would  injure  Miss  R. ; but  we  wish  to  mention 


17 


two  inconsistencies,  very  similar  to  those  which  the  Superior 
and  her  counsel  consider  sufficient  to  destroy  all  credit.  In  her 
second  letter  she  says,  “Miss  R.  remained  at  the  Convent  six 
months.”  In  her  first  letter  she  says,  “I  entered  the  Ursuline 
Convent  iu  Dec.  1827.  In  her  second,  “ having  left  there  a 
few  months  previous  to  her  (Miss  R.’s)  entrance.”  Miss  R. 
entered,  says  the  Superior  Sept.  11,  1831.  Miss  Alden  says, 
again,  in  her  first  letter,  “during  my  residence  there  (a  period 
of  four  years.”)  W e consider  such  contradictions  of  no  im- 
portance ; but  mention  them  that  those  who  decry  ‘ Six 
Months  in  a Convent,’  may  observe  the  inconsistencies  of  their 
side.  We  say  nothing  of  Miss  Alden’s  veracity;  we  know 
nothing  against  it.  Her  letters  cannot  affect  Miss  R.’s  charac- 
ter, for  the  very  good  reason  that,  from  her  own  acknowledgment 
she  knows  nothing  of  her  personally,  and  probably  never  saw 
her.  If  mere  retailers  of  rumors  are  to  be  brought  forward  as 
proper  evidence  in  an  important  case  like  this,  it  were  better 
to  discontinue  all  discussion.  Before  leaving  Miss  Alden, 
we  would  say  to  her,  that  we  hope  no  one,  on  the  strength  of 
vague  rumor,  will  ever  utter,  of  herself,  publicly  or  privately, 
any  language  like  that  she  has  used  for  the  purpose  of  injuring 
a female  who  is  unknown  to  her.  We  would  also  observe,  that 
we  shall  consider  ourselves  under  great  obligations  to  the  Au- 
thor of  the  Remarks , or  any  one , who  will  show  us  anything 
in  Miss  A.’s  letters,  that  disproves,  or  even  mentions  what  Miss 
Reed  says  of  the  practice  of  kneeling  to  the  Bishop,  kissing  the 
floor,  &c. 

We  would  request  our  readers  to  examine  carefully,  and  ob- 
serve for  themselves  the  misrepresentations  (on  the  23d  and 
24th  pages  of  the  Remarks)  of  Miss  R.’s  account  of  “ tying  a 
handkerchief  about  her  face,”  and  the  conversations  between 
the  Bishop  and  Superior  overheard  by  her.  We  pass  on  to 
notice  an  important  assertion — important  as  affecting  the 
veracity  of  the  writer.  We  cordially  agree  with  him,  that  “it 
is  a well  established  rule  of  law  and  common  sense,  that,  if  a 
witness  be  convicted  of  a wilful  falsehood  in  one  fact,  he  is  not 
*2 


18 


worthy  of  belief  in  any  other;  at  any  rate,  that  his  declaration 
is  not  to  be  received  against  that  of  a person  who  stands  unim- 
peached.” And  we  call  on  every  honest  mind  to  throw  down 
his  book  u as  a cabinet,  of  falsehoods,”  if  he  be  proved  guilty 
of  a single  wilfully  false  statement. 

On  the  26th  page  he  says  ; “ On  page  94  of  her  (Miss  R.’s) 
book,  she  speaks  of  a piece  of  poetry,  composed  by  her  at 
Mount  Benedict.”  Will  he  show  us  where,  on  the  94^/i  page , 
or  in  her  whole  Narrative  even , she  claims  the  composition 
of  that  poetry.  The  Superior  herself  says,  that  Mrs.  Austin 
is  the  author  of  those  lines,  and  yet  our  candid  writer,  after 
mentioning  this  statement  of  the  Superior,  speaks  of  them  as 
her  (Miss  R.’s)  precious  verses.  If  they  were  copied  by  Miss 
R.  in  the  manner  here  presented,  what  are  they  but  a proof  of 
the  Superior’s  regard  for  her  own  reputation,  if  she  would 
send  such  a person  into  the  world  as  a teacher  of  music  even  ? 
There  are  many  assertions  here  about  Miss  R.  which,  for  all 
that  we  have  discovered,  rest  entirely  upon  the  writer’s  veracity. 
If  he  asks  our  belief  of  them,  we  refer  him  to  the  “ established 
rule  of  law  and  common  sense.”  After  such  exhibitions  of 
truth  and  candor,  it  were  better  to  have  omitted  the  sneer  at 
the  editor  of  the  Advocate,  — a man,  who,  if  we  are  correctly 
informed,  for  ability,  moral  courage  and  candor,  will  not  suffer  in 
comparison  with  any  editor  in  the  city,  and  who  is  infinitely  su- 
perior in  regard  for  truth  ( judging  from  Miss  R.’s  Introduction,) 
to  the  author  of  Preliminary  Remarks.  The  Superior  has 
been  unfortunate  in  her  selection  of  an  assistant ; her  worst 
enemy  could  have  recommended  no  other. 

It  is  painful  and  disgusting  to  discover  language  like  that 
on  the  28th  page,  in  a work  issued  as  a reply  to  “ Six 
Months  in  a Convent  ” — a defence  of  the  Ursuline  Communi- 
ty. But  even,  if  to  have  been  a domestic  were  so  high  a 
crime,  if  the  term  were  synonymous  with  liart  as  one  would 
infer  from  the  use  often  made  of  it,  (fo,r  it  has  been  brought 
forward  as  a reason  that  Miss  R.  should  not  be  credited,)  it  was 
hardly  candid  or  proper  to  reiterate  the  charge  at  this  late  day ; 


19 


nay  more,  the  man  who  does  it  directly  accuses  Mr.  Russel  of 
falsehood.  It  i3  stated  in  the  Reply,  that  Miss  R.  was  a do- 
mestic in  his  family.  In  answer  to  a communication  in  the 
New  York  Star  (supposed  to  have  been  written  by  Judge  Fay,) 
in  which  this  grievous  offence  was  first  mentioned,  an  article 
appeared  in  the  Gazette,  from  the  publishers,  of  whom  Mr. 
R.  is  one,  contradicting  the  statement.  Mr.  R.  certainly  knew 
whether  Miss  Reed  ever  lived  in  his  family  in  that  capacity,  and 
as  the  denial  of  the  assertion  was  made  with  his  knowledge, 
the  assertion  is  untrue,  or  he  is  party  to  a falsehood.  We  give 
a few  extracts  which  will  satisfy  any  candid  mind,  and  also 
prove  that  there  is  some  ground  for  supposing  Miss  R.  to  be  a 
person  of  good  moral  character. 

“There  is  not  in  in  the  whole  communication  any  specific  charge  against  the 
moral  character,  the  purity,  or  veracity  of  Miss  Reed,  and  the  writer  of  the 
abusive  article  in  the  Star  knew  that,  had  he,  (or  she)  attempted  that  course, 
he  would  have  rendered  himself  and  the  Editors,  who  should  publish  such  a 
libel,  amenable  to  the  Grand  Jury.  He  (or  she)  knew  that  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Croswell,  Rector  of  Christ  Church  in  Boston,  a man  universally  beloved  for 
his  purity  and  piety  of  character,  had  certified  that  Miss  Reed  has  “ for  more 
than  two  years  been  a communicant  of  his  Church,  that  he  has  always  regard- 
ed her  as  a devout  person,  and  exemplary  in  her  Christian  walk  and  conversa- 
tion, and  that  he  places  great  confidence  in  her  sincerity  and  intention  to  re- 
late the  truth  on  all  occasions .” 

“ Let  not  Judge  Fay  and  his  family  complain  that  they  are  brought  before 
the  public.  They  have  chosen  to  drag  before  the  public  the  aged  father,  and 
the  highly  respectable  sisters  of  Miss  Reed ; ladies,  who  in  every  particular  but 
mere  wealth,  are  superior  to  those  who  have  so  rudely  assailed  them.  Three 
of  these  ladies  who  are  sneered  at  as  * permanent  domestics,’  are  now  heads  of 
highly  respectable  families,  living  in  respectable  competence.  They  never 
were  * domestics;  ’ though  it  would  be  no  discredit,  but  an  honor,  if  they  had 
raised  themselves  from  such  a rank  to  their  present  intelligence  and  refinement. 
The  only  one  of  the  family  of  whom  it  could  be  said  with  any  pretence  to 
truth,  that  she  lived  out  as  ‘ help,’  resided  with  a lady  before  her  marriage,  for 
five  years,  as  a companion,  not  a domestic,  and  she  is  now  the  wife  of  a man 
who  is  brother  of  one  of  the  first  Counsellors  in  Boston,  and  is  himself  as  res- 
pectable as  Judge  Fay;  nay,  if  money  is  the  only  test  of  character,  we  will 
warrant  that  his  income,  arising  from  a business  in  which  some  thirty  thousand 
dollars  are  invested,  exceeds  the  salary  of  the  formidable  aristocratic  Judge  of 
an  Inferior  Probate  Court  in  Middlesex. 

But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  veracity  of  Miss  Reed  ? We  have 
heard  of  an  aristocracy  of  talent,  but  never  of  an  aristocracy  of  truth.  The  poor 
and  humble  have  as  just  claims  to  be  believed  as  the  rich  and  titled,  whether 


20 


in  or  out  of  Convents,  and  no  Judge  in  this  country,  unless  it  were  Judge 
Fay,  would  ever  think  of  weighing  testimony  by  the  wealth  and  ‘ parentage  ’ 
of  the  witnesses.” 

“One  word  as  to  the  motives  of  this  young  lady  in  permitting  her  narrative  to 
be  published.  ‘ An  Episcopalian  says  she  is  making  a living  out  of  it.  Now 
be  it  known  to  all  the  world,  that  this  young  lady,  though  pressed  by  her  friends, 
absolutely  refused  to  have  any  pecuniary  interest  in  the  printing.” 

The  man  who,  with  such  statements  before  him,  from  men 
of  unquestionable  veracity,  will  continue  to  pour  out  his  vile 
abuse,  is  worthy  only  of  contempt.  To  convince  him  is  im- 
possible, for  he  will  believe  no  one,  however  respectable,  unless 
he  coincide  with  his  own  preconceived  notions.  The  Judge 
was  comparatively  blameless  for  his  cry  of  11  help  ; ” he  may 
have  had  authority  for  it ; but  after  it  was  denied  by  responsi- 
ble persons,  for  the  author  of  the  Reply  to  raise  it  again,  is  in- 
excusable. We  will  not  find  fault  with  the  Judge  for  the  Let- 
ter in  the  Star,  (if  he  wrote  it;)  he  has  other  matters  to  look 
after  which  we  cannot  explain.  How  he  could,  consistently 
with  truth,  testify  on  oath,  that  the  conduct  of  Mrs.  Mary  John 
was  the  cause  of  a certain  outrage,  and  afterwards  accuse  the 
Editor  of  the  Courier  and  Miss  R.  of  causing  the  same  out- 
rage, is  beyond  our  comprehension.  Before  bidding  him  fare- 
well, we  would  beg  leave  to  differ  from  “A  Unitarian  and 
Episcopalian,5’  and  advise  him  to  throw  aside  his  “ last  Wills 
and  Testaments,”  and  devote  his  time  to  reconciling  these  con- 
tradictions ; for,  until  he  does,  he  will  not  regain  the  good 
opinion  he  has  lost. 

We  return  now  to  our  author,  who  has  been  rather  rash  — 
rather  unguarded  in  some  of  his  expressions,  if,  (as  we  suppose 
from  what  we  have  read,)  he  entertain  a high  opinion  of  birth 
or  employment . We  hope  no  one,  after  reading  his  language, 
will  infer  that  he  has  been  ; loosely  brought  up,5  or  that,  having 
had  excellent  advantages,  he  has  voluntarily  degraded  himself 
by  mingling  with  obscure , low  and  illiterate  people.  But  it 
would  be  strange,  if  there  were  no  suspicion  of  an  individual, 
who  shows  such  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  refined 
parlance  of  the  kitchen,  who  is  such  an  experienced  cheapener 
of  five  shilling  trinkets, — such  an  oracle  in  the  price  of  ear 


21 


knobs  ! We  doubt  if  there  are  many  domestics  whose  infor- 
mation upon  subjects  of  this  nature  is  more  extensive.  The 
writer  astonishes  us,  by  the  great  variety  of  his  acquirements  ; 
on  all  topics,  from  the  Chorus  of  the  ancient  Drama,  to  the 
minutiae  of  the  kitchen,  he  is  a complete  book  of  reference, — 
a walking  cyclopedia, — and  his  innumerable  attainments, — are 
only  equalled  by  the  “ Universal  Medicines,”  “ for  coughs,  colds, 
asthmas  and  consumptions ; removing  sordes  from  the  teeth, 
freckles  from  the  face,”  (fee.  (fee. 

Reminding  our  readers  of  the  “ established  rule  of  law  and 
common  sense,”  we  next  present  to  them  the  Rev.  Dr.  Byrne  ; 
who  came  forward  voluntarily  to  impeach  Miss  R.’s  veracity, 
and  is  introduced  in  the  Pamphlet  before  us  for  the  same  pur- 
pose. It  is  unpleasant  to  us  to  be  obliged  to  bring  aught 
against  the  character  of  a clergyman  of  any  denomination,  but 
as  his  assertions,  if  true,  destroy  Miss  R.’s  credibility,  it  is 
necessary  that  we  produce  reasons,  if  there  are  any,  why 
they  should  be  received  with  caution.  In  a communication 
recently  inserted  in  the  Courier,  written  by  him,  he  differs 
entirely  from  the  Superior  with  respect  to  the  time  of  certain 
transactions.  Which  of  them  falsifies  ? A similar  inaccura- 
cy in  a statement  of  Miss  Reed,  and  no  one  would  believe 
her  ! But  as  the  Dr.  may  be  right,  and  the  Superior  wrong 
in  this  instance,  we  insert  an  article  which  is  going  the  round 
of  the  papers. 

“An  Irish  pauper,  named  Fitzgerald,  died  a few  days  ago  in  the  Danvers 
almshouse,  in  which  he  had  lived  and  been  supported  at  the  public  expense 
for  the  last  20  years.  Upon  his  person  was  found,  after  his  decease,  a letter 
directed  to  him,  and  signed  “ John  Bishop  of  Boston.”  The  letter  acknowl- 
edged the  possession  of  $103  belonging  to  Fitzgerald;  stated  that  the  writer 
sent  the  odd  $3,  and  that  the  100  had  been  placed  in  the  Savings’  Bank,  from 
whence  Fitzgerald  might  procure  it  by  calling  on  the  Rev.  Mr.  Taylor,  or 
Rev.  Mr.  Byrne.  (Catholic  Priests.) 

“ The  overseers  of  the  Danvers  almshouse,  thinking  they  had  a claim  upon 
this  money,  having  supported  Fitzgerald  so  long,  applied  at  the  Savings’  Bank; 
but  found  it  had  been  withdrawn  by  Mr.  Byrne.  They  then  applied  to  him; 
and  they  state  that  he  at  first  denied  all  knowledge  of  it,  but  afterwards 
accounted  for  it.  On  further  inspection  of  the  pauper’s  papers,  there  was 
every  reason  to  believe  that  at  the  time  he  first  became  an  inmate  of  the 

• 


22 


almshouse  at  Danvers,  he  was  worth  $1400.  What,  however,  had  become 
of  this  money  — how  it  had  been  invested  — could  not  be  ascertained. 
[On  motion  of  Mr.  Parsons,  the  report  of  the  committee  was  referred  to  the 
Attorney  General,  with  instructions  to  act  upon  this  and  the  other  matters 
contained  therein,  and  report  to  the  next  General  Court.]” 

If  the  investigations  of  the  Attorney  General  do  not  remove 
this  imputation  against  the  Rev.  gentleman’s  character,  Miss 
Reed’s  credit  continues  good.  If  the  imputation  be  removed , 
there  is  a rumor  of  an  affair  not  creditable  to  the  Dr.  that 
happened  at  the  State  House,  about  the  time  that  the  Report 
respecting  the  Danver’s  pauper,  was  presented.  But  we  may 
often  form  a correct  opinion  of  a man  by  the  company  he 
keeps,  and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  sentiments  of 
his  associates  do  not  differ  materially  from  his  own.  At  a 
Society  dinner  in  this  city,  not  long  ago,  a Catholic  cler- 
gyman, (if  we  remember  right,)  proposed  a sentiment  some- 
thing like  the  following  — “ George  Pepper  Esq.,  the  talented 
Editor  of  the  Literary  and  Catholic  Sentinel ! ” Will  our 
readers  peruse  carefully  a few  extracts  from  the  editorials  of  the 
Sentinel,  and  decide  for  themselves  what  must  be  the  charac- 
ter of  that  clergyman  who  publicly  approbates  the  author  of 
these  extracts,  — or  of  that  body  of  clergymen,  which  does 
not  discountenance  such  sentiments  in  a member  of  that 
body  ? May  we  not  justly  infer  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Byrne 
advocates  these  sentiments?  We  present  the  extracts : 

“We  have  repeatedly  informed  the  editor  of  the  Recorder,  that  the  Catho- 
lic Church  does  not,  nor  never  did,  withhold  authentic  versions  of  the  Scrip- 
tures from  the  laity.  But  that  she  strictly  and  sternly  prohibits  them  from  reading 
those  corrupt,  pernicious,  and  debased  versions  issued  out  by  that  hypocritical 
banditti  of  dishonest  and  pharisaical  deceivers,  the  Bible  Societies,  who 
venally  trade  in  that  deleterious  commodity,  is  certain. 

“If  we  were  before  the  awful  tribunal  of  God,  and  were  asked  to  declare 
what  our  opinion  of  the  Bible  and  Temperance  canting  moralists  were,  we 
would  solemnly  aver  that  it  is  our  conviction,  that  a great  part  of  them 
are  knaves,  adulterers,  defrauders,  and  beastly  drunkards.  We  have  all 
heard  of  £ Parson  Beecher's  oil,'  and,  doubtless,  he  knew  well  how  and 
when  to  use  it,  in  the  recesses  of  his  own  house,  though  this  fellow  would 
preach  vociferously,  against  the  moderate  use  of  ardent  spirits.” 


23 


“ We  quote  from  that  famous  charge,  which  is  now  before  us,  for  the 
especial  benefit  of  the  corrupt  Bible  mongers  of  this  State,  where  Bible 
reading  is  daily  producing  such  direful  moral  effects .” 

“ Never,  while  reason  and  opinion  predominate  in  our  mind,  shall  we 
retract  the  sentence  of  reprobation,  which  we  felt  called  upon  to  pass, 
on  the  majority  of  the  masked  hypocrites  who  deal  in  corrupt  Bibles , 
and  those  abominable  temperance  principles,  not  graduated  on  the  rational 
scale  of  social  morality.  No  member  of  that  pestiferous  association  of  as- 
sumed virtue , can  have  a more  invincible  abhorrence  to  the  beastly  vice  of 
drunkenness  than  we;  but  we  would  smite,  a la  Ham , the  face  of  any  fana- 
tic fellow  of  the  banditti,  who  should  have  the  daring  insolence  to  tell  us, 
that  we  committed  a moral  crime,  by  slaking  our  thirst  with  a moderate 
draught  of  ale  or  brandy.” 

These  are  a fair  specimen  of  the  contents  of  the  Sentinel  — 
a paper  circulated  extensively  among  the  Catholics  of  Boston, 
and  from  what  we  know  of  the  influence  of  the  Priests  over 
the  people,  circulated  with  their  permission,  or  what  is  equally 
blameable,  without  their  interference.  And  what  is  the  char- 
acter of  this  paper  ? It  is  scurrilous — abusive  — calculated  to 
prejudice  its  readers  against  American  Christians  of  all  sects, — 
excite  continual  jealousy  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  country,  and 
perpetuate  that  feeling  of  hostility  which  has  always  existed, 
and  of  which  there  is  so  much  fear  at  the  present  time.  That 
the  priests  have  the  power  to  stop  it,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
they  prevent  the  distribution  and  reading  of  the  Bible  — the 
education,  at  Protestant  schools,  of  a large  proportion  of  the 
Irish  population  ; and  that  too  when  many  of  them  are  ex- 
tremely desirous  of  being  educated.  Is  intelligence  incompat- 
ible with  degradation  ? Are  the  clergy  then  accessory  to  the 
degradation  of  the  people  ? Are  they  the  cause  of  this  degra- 
dation ? — Hundreds  of  benevolent  individuals,  of  all  denomin- 
ations stand  ready  to  give  instruction  gratuitously,  both  to 
children  and  adults,  and  would  do  it  but  for  the  prohibition  of 
whom  ? The  Clergy?  But  what  would  be  the  effects  of  this 
instruction  ? Not  the  ability  to  mumble  over,  without  under- 
standing their  import,  a few  Latin  prayers  — not  the  power  of 
crossing  themselves  or  telling  their  beads  — not  a custom,  under 
the  absurd  expectation  of  appeasing  the  anger  of  the  Most 
High,  of  bestowing  their  hard  earned  substance  upon  fallible 


24 


accountable  beings  like  themselves ; but  a knowledge  of  the 
true  God,  a sense  of  their  own  rights  ; — a consciousness  of 
their  abilities,  and  an  ambition  to  elevate  themselves  to  an 
equality  with  the  inhabitants  of  their  adopted  country.  We 
know  not  by  what  authority  the  Bishop  or  the  Clergy  stand  up 
between  man  and  his  Maker  and  keep  back  the  word  of  Life,* 
neither  can  we  conceive  of  the  daring,  that  will  incur  this  great 
responsibility,  — or  the  presumption  that  will  raise  the  cry  of 
immorality  against  the  Volume  of  Inspiration.  We  do  not 
believe  that  individual  ever  yet  lived,  who  thought  himself  pos- 
sessed of  the  power  to  pardon  sin ; and  for  this  reason,  the 
practice  appears  to  us  a gross  violation  of  right  — a shameful 
imposition  upon  an  ignorant  portion  of  the  community,  and 
until  our  belief  is  changed,  we  can  place  no  confidence  in  any 
one  who  practices  or  encourages  such  impositions. 

We  were  never  able  to  discover  the  connection  between  reli- 
gious intolerance  and  the  destruction  of  the  Ursuline  Convent, — 
between  persecution  and  the  burning  of  a Seminary  — fanati- 
cism and  revenge  of  an  injury  supposed  to  have  been  done 
to  a female,  which  was  stated  on  oath  as  the  sole  cause  of  the 
act  by  those  most  deeply  interested.  Is  there  any  proof  that 
this  was  a religious  institution?  The  school  certainly  was 
not ; for  it  has  been  continually  asserted,  by  these  who  should 
know  the  fact,  that  there  was  no  more  religion  there  than  in 
any  other  school.  Was  there  any  religious  establishment  con- 
nected with  it?  There  were  devotions  there  at  stated  times,  as 
in  many  families.  Why  then  this  cry  of  intolerance,  which 
was  raised  in  FaneuilHall  the  day  after  the  occurrence,  echoed 
in  the  Hall  of  our  Legislature,  and  is  repeated  in  the  Reply 
before  us? 

We  have  alread}^  spoken  of  Catholicism  : but  as  many  reli- 
gious sects  have  been  most  unjustly  implicated  in  the  affair  of 
August  last,  at  Charlestown  — we  consider  ourselves  justified 
in  making  a few  further  remarks  upon  this  subject.  In  all  the 

* See  Catholic  Sentinel,  passim : also  Bishop  Fenwick’s  testimony  at  Buz- 
zel’s  trial. 


25 


discussions  upon  Romanism  and  the  dangers  to  be  apprehend- 
ed from  the  dissemination  of  the  principles  and  doctrines  of 
the  Church,  with  which  we  have  been  acquainted  in  this  city, 
two  arguments  have  been  presented,  which  have  satisfied  the 
minds  of  the  majority  of  the  people,  that  there  is  no  cause  for 
alarm  ; what  there  is  in  these  arguments  so  decisive , we  have 
never  been  able  to  discover.  They  are,  in  substance,  as  follows ; 
“Bishop  Fenwick,  Cheverus  and  others  are  very  talented,  esti- 
mable, pious  men  ; ” — u Catholicism  in  the  Nineteenth  centu- 
ry and  in  this  country,  differs  entirely  in  its  principles  and  prac- 
tises from  what  it  was  formerly,  and  is  now  in  Europe.”  We 
shall  make  no  lengthy  comment  upon  these  assertions,  but 
only  present  a few  ideas,  with  the  hope  that  they  will  lead 
people  to  think  and  decide  for  themselves.  In  forming  our 
opinions  upon  the  character  of  men,  we  are  but  little  influenced 
by  their  reputation  or  known  ability.  We  have  read  some- 
where in  a book,  which,  being  one  of  the  laity  we  should  not 
read,  “ by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.”  — We  propose 
then  a few  questions,  which  our  readers  can  answer. 

1.  Has  Bishop  Fenwick  any  control  over  the  Catholic  pop- 
ulation of  this  city  ? 

2.  Does  he  not  know  that,  in  comparison  with  the  rest  of  the 
population  of  this  city,  they  are  in  a degraded  condition  and  that 
ignorance  is  the  cause  of  this  degradation  ? 

3.  Has  he  been  willing  that  they  should  share  in  those 
means  of  education,  which  the  liberality  of  our  citizens  has 
provided  ? — and  if  not,  has  he  made  exertions  to  provide  other 
means  of  education  ? 

4.  If  he  has  not  exerted  himself,  to  the  extent  of  his  abili- 
ty, to  educate  them  and  improve  their  condition,  is  he  that  be- 
nevolent and  pious  man  that  he  is  represented  ? 

5.  Is  it  possible  that  a man  of  his  good  natural  sense  — 
general  information  — and  superior  education,  does  not  see  the 
impiety  and  absurdity  of  many  of  the  tenets  and  practices  of 
the  Romish  church  ? 

3 


\ 


26 


6.  What  is  the  difference  between  Catholicism  in  this  coun- 
try and  in  Europe  ? 

7.  Has  a voyage  across  the  Atlantic  any  efficacy  in  remov- 
ing superstition  from  the  mind  — in  substituting  knowledge  for 
ignorance  — liberality  for  intolerance  ? 

8.  Is  it  not  contrary  to  the  very  nature  of  the  human 
mind  — that  a large  body  of  people  should  coutinue  year  after 
year  in  this  country,  in  the  midst  of  all  this  light  and  intelli- 
gence without  the  least  mental  improvement? 

9.  Is  there  not  some  powerful  cause  in  continual  operation — 
keeping  out  all  light  and  knowledge  from  this  mass  of  mind  ? — 
if  so  should  it  not  be  sought  out  and  removed  ? 

10.  How  long  can  this  state  of  things  continue,  without  en- 
dangering our  civil  and  religious  liberties? 

We  have  attempted,  in  our  hasty  review  of  the  “Preliminary 
Remarks,”  to  expose  their  abuse,  misrepresentation  and  false- 
hood. Whether  we  have  been  successful,  our  readers  will 
decide.  We  will  not  insult  the  good  sense  of  the  people  of  this 
State  by  demonstrating  to  them  the  possibility  or  the  consisten- 
cy of  being  opposed,  both  to  the  outrage  at  Mount.  Benedict, 
and  also  to  that  greater  outrage  upon  the  character  of  Miss 
Reed — greater,  — inasmuch  as  “ a good  name  is  better  than 
riches” — greater,  because,  for  property  destroyed,  there  may 
be  restitution,  while  character  once  lost  may  never  be  regained, 
an  outrage,  base, — because  attempted  in  consequence  of  the 
belief  that  she  was  destitute  and  friendless.  As  we  have  before 
stated,  we  have  no  acquaintance  with  Miss  Reed  or  her  friends. 
We  are  conscious  of  no  prejudice  in  favor  of  either  party ; but 
our  opinion  has  been  formed  entirely  from  a careful  perusal  of 
both  works  ; and  it  seems  to  us  impossible  that  any  unpreju- 
diced person  can  have  observed  the  gross  attack  made  upon 
her  character,  on  the  strength  of  mere  rumor,  without  aston- 
ishment. There  is  no  insinuation  that  has  not  been  thrown 
out  against  her  — no  abuse  that  has  not  been  heaped  upon 


27 


her.  She  has  been  assailed  in  high  and  low  places — by  men 
of  every  grade  in  society,  and  of  every  profession  ; and  we 
think  she  has  equal  cause  with  the  “ hapless  Judge,”  especial- 
ly after  this  last  attack  from  the  Counsel,  the  Superior  and 
Miss  Alden,  to  exclaim, 

“ Tray,  Blanche  and  Sweetheart,  — see  they  bark  at  me.” 

Having  thus  reviewed  the  “ Preliminary  Remarks,”  written, 
by  some  other  hand  than  the  Lady  Superior’s,  we  now  come 
to  the  “ Answer,”  which  purports  to  be,  and  probably  is,  her 
production.  And  here,  we  regret  to  say,  that  in  the  outset,  we 
are  met  with  expressions  totally  foreign  from  the  courtesy,  and 
gentleness  that  a lady,  and  especially,  a religious  devotee  ought 
to  exhibit  on  all  occasions. 

Miss  Reed  is  charged  with  falsehood  and  baseness ; those 
who  are  acquainted  with  her,  (it  is  insinuated,)  condemn  her 
character ; and  then,  because,  from  the  absolute  incorrectness  of 
these  statements,  her  friends  who  truly  know  her,  have  taken 
her  by  the  hand,  and  have  courageously  supported  her  against 
the  calumny  and  abuse  of  the  Catholics,  they  are  styled  “ lead- 
ing agitators  and  sectarians.” 

Every  one  that  engages  in  public  controversy,  ought  to 
know,  that  so  far  from  benefiting,  he  vitally  injures  his  cause, 
by  indulging  in  opprobrious  epithets.  Many  a person,  dis- 
posed to  view  the  Lady  Superior’s  conduct  in  the  most  favora- 
ble light,  will  turn  in  disgust,  from  these  abusive  epithets  and 
reproachful  allusions,  and  will  involuntarily  incline  to  favor 
Miss  Reed,  in  consequence  of  the  mild  and  unpretending 
character  of  her  work.  Its  superiority  in  this  respect  over  the 
“ Answer,”  cannot  be  doubted.  On  the  very  second  page  of 
the  latter  publication,  it  is  insultingly  and  shamefully  said 
of  three  most  respectable  individuals  of  this  city,  that 
Dr.  B.  the  “ pious  Dr.  F.  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  C.”  after  read- 
ing Miss  R.’s  manuscript,  “ were  disappointed  that  it  was  not 
so  bad  as  they  expected,  yet  they  thanked  her  for  what  she  had 


2S 


written,  and  inspirited  her  to  still  better  things  — “ they  shall 
have  their  reward.5’  And  this  aspersion,  which  the  Superior 
must  have  known  had  not  the  least  foundation,  is  cast 
upon  men  whose  sincere  desire  to  promote  public  tranquillity 
and  virtue  cannot  be  suspected.  Before  she  issues  another 
edition  of  the  “ Answer,”  we  recommend  to  her  perusal,  the 
anecdote  of  the  Icelander,  who,  upon  being  observed  to  pay 
close  attention  to  a dispute  between  two  Englishmen,  was 
asked  how  he  could  possibly  be  interested  in  a quarrel  carried 
on  in  a language  he  did  not  understand.  “ I understand 
enough  about  it,5’  he  replied,  “ to  know  which  is  in  the  wrong  ; 
it  is  the  one  that  talks  loudly  and  fiercely.” 

As  many  remarks  have  been  made  respecting  the  character  of 
Miss  Reed’s  mind,  we  shall,  as  briefly  as  possible,  offer  our 
opinion  concerning  it.  There  is  a time  in  every  one’s  life, 
when  he  is  most  under  the  influence  of  religious  impressions. 
Individuals  of  a romantic  temperament  aud  of  a retiring, 
meditative  disposition,  arrive  at  this  period  sooner  than  others. 
Such  we  take  to  have  been  the  case  with  Miss  R.  With  an 
imagination  highly  wrought  up  by  the  peculiar  religious  in- 
fluences to  which  she  had  been  subjected,  and  daily  listening  to 
encomiums  upon  the  unalloyed  happiness  and  peacefulness  of 
secluded  life,  — the  principal,  and,  we  really  believe,  the  sincere 
wish  of  her  heart  was,  to  be  a nun.  Filled  with  this  deter- 
mination, entertained  by  her  for  five  years,  she  was,  after 
persevering  application,  admitted  into  the  Convent,  and  in- 
structed in  music,  with  the  expectation  of  being  received, 
after  the  requisite  time,  as  one  of  the  sisterhood.  But  alas, 
the  life  to  which  she  had  looked  forward  with  anticipations  of 
the  purest  enjoyment,  turned  out,  in  reality,  to  be  a scene  of 
bitter  contention  and  wasting  sorrow.  The  good  mother’s 
tongue,  that  was  tuned  to  the  sweetest  and  softest  notes  in 
the  presence  of  visiters,  she  found  to  her  sorrow,  could,  in 
the  privacy  of  the  cloister,  wag  as  pertly  and  flippantly  as  the 
like  nimble  member  of  “ Kate  the  curst ; and  the  face  that 


29 


was  wreathed  in  smiles  for  heretics , had  frequently  a tart  and 
vinegar  aspect  for  the  poor  saints. 

Placed  in  this  situation,  after  having  in  vain  attempted  to 
reconcile  herself  to  it,  Miss  R.  determined,  if  it  was  in  her 
power,  to  leave  the  Convent.  But  the  religious  faith  she  had 
embraced,  still  held  too  firm  a hold  on  her  mind  to  permit  her 
to  abandon  it.  She  expressed  a wish  to  be  transferred  to  the 
Institution  of  the  Sisters  of  Charity,  at  Emmetsburgh,  at  the 
same  time  signifying  her  dissatisfaction  with  her  mode  of 
life.  Exasperated  by  any  reflection  upon  her  establishment, 
the  Superior,  at  first,  uses  threatening  and  abusive  language 
towards  her,  but  soon  artfully  changes  her  course  of  conduct ; 
and.  fearing  that,  unless  Miss  R.’s  wish  is  gratified,  she  may 
escape  and  make  known  her  story  to  the  world,  she  promises 
in  the  words  of  her  own  book,  “ to  see  if  anything  can  be 
done  to  effect  her  wishes.” 

Canada,  instead  of  Emmetsburg,  is  fixed  upon  as  the  place 
of  her  destination.  There  may  be  a variety  of  reasons  best 
known  to  the  Catholics  why  the  former  place  should  be  pre- 
ferred to  the  latter.  She  could,  perhaps,  be  kept  in  greater 
secrecy  there,  and  if  it  be  true  that  Miss  Kennedy  had  joined 
the  Sisters  of  Charity,  good  policy  would  require  that  another 
person  should  not  be  sent  to  them  with  a similar  opinion  of  the 
Convent.  Under  these  circumstances,  as  stated  by  Miss  R. 
an  attempt  was  made  to  carry  her  off,  which  failed  only  be- 
cause Mrs.  Molfatt  did  not  suppose  her  plans  known  to  her, 
and  perceived  that  at  that  time,  she  could  not,  without  diffi- 
• culty,  accomplish  her  purpose.  It  is  likely,  however,  she 
supposed  that  at  some  subsequent  period,  Miss  R.  would  make 
no  opposition  to  a proposal  to  gratify  her  desire  to  quit  Mount 
Benedict,  and  that  then  her  object  would  be  easily  and  peacea- 
bly gained.  Thus,  in  apprehension  that  an  attempt  would  be 
made  upon  her  personal  liberty,  the  author  of  “ Six  Months  in 
a Convent,”  succeeded  in  making  her  escape,  and  has  pub- 
lished what  she  avers  to  be  a true  narrative  of  her  residence  in 
the  Ursuline  Institution. 

*3 


30 


It  may  be  thought  that  we  are  giving  a partial  view  of 
the  case,  but  we  think  we  have  stated  nothing  that  cannot  be 
substantiated,  and  in  order  to  introduce  clearness  and  method 
into  our  investigation  of  the  subject,  we  propose  to  discuss  the 
three  following  questions. 

1.  Whether  Miss  Reed  was  admitted  into  the  Convent  to 
become  a nun  ? 

2.  Whether  she  witnessed  any  improper,  ridiculous  or  in- 
human conduct  on  the  part  of  the  nuns  or  the  Superior  while 
she  was  an  inmate? 

3.  Whether  she  was  detained  there  against  her  will,  and 
whether  Mrs.  Moffatt  has  given  a satisfactory  answer  to  the 
declaration  of  Miss  R.  that  it  was  intended  to  make  an  attempt 
to  send  her  to  Canada  ? 

Before,  however,  examining  these  points,  we  will  notice 
some  of  the  inconsistencies,  inaccuracies  and  absurdities  of  the 
Superior’s  Answer,  not  exactly  pertaining  to  the  questions 
mentioned  above. 

And  first,  with  regard  to  the  title  of  Miss  Reed’s  book.  She 
declares  that  the  very  name  “ Six  Months  in  a Convent,”  is  a 
lie,  since  Miss  R.  staid  there  only  four  months  and  a few  days; 
and  on  this  fact  she  lays  great  stress,  although  the  name  was 
probably  assumed  only  for  convenience,  and  it  is  stated 
further  down  on  the  title  page  of  Miss  R.!s  book,  that  she  was 
an  “ inmate  of  the  Ursuline  Convent,  nearly  six  months.”  O 
deplorable  and  prof  ound  effort  to  deceive  in  an  individual,  who, 
in  one  line,  with  malice  prepense,  seeks  to  mislead  the  public 
as  to  the  important  particular,  whether  the  young  lady  staid 
six  months,  or  four  months  seven  days,  in  the  institution,  and 
in  the  next,  blunders  out  a contradiction  ! 

But  we  have  not  yet  touched  upon  the  most  important  point 
in  relation  to  this  matter.  Let  us  mention  it.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  Superior’s  punctiliousness  as  to  dates,  and  her  certainty 
that  she  is  right,  her  own  much  lauded  pupil,  whom  she  has 
brought  forward  to  support  her,  says,  “Miss  Reed  remained  at 


31 


the  Convent  six  months  on  charity.”  It  is  a pity  Miss  Aldeii 
did  not  confine  herself  to  answering  the  questions  put  to  her, 
and  take  care  not  to  o’erstep  the  line  prescribed. 

The  Superior  in  her  “ card  ” says  — 11  Rebecca  Theresa 
Reed,  alias  St.  Mary  Agnes,  though  it  was  not  known  till  a 
few  months  since,  by  the  inmates  of  the  Ursuline  Community, 
that  she  had  any  pretension  to  the  latter  name.” 

A similar  remark  is  made  by  her  in  page  26  of  her  book, 
with  the  omission,  however,  of  the  word  “ /S'/,”  the  answer  to 
both  which  we  shall  transcribe  from  the  Morning  Post,  of  April 
11th,  as  it  is  satisfactory  and  incontrovertible.  The  article  re- 
ferred to  was  written  in  reply  to  Dr.  Byrne. 

“ Father  Byrne,  in  his  letter  to  the  Courier,  says,  “ I informed 
her,  she  might  be  received  by  the  name  of  Rebecca  Theresa, 
or  any  other  she  preferred,  and  she  herself  chose  Mary  Agnes 
Theresa.  Then,  after  three  months  instruction,  I ad?ninis- 
tered  baptism  to  her  by  this  name” 

“ There  it  is  in  black  and  white.  The  Superior  says  that 
it  was  never  known  in  the  Convent  till  a few  months  ago, 
that  Miss  Reed  had  any  pretension  to  the  name  of  Mary  Ag- 
nes, and  now  you  tell  the  Superior  and  the  world,  what  the 
Superior  must  have  known  as  well  as  you,  that  three  years 
and  a half  ago , you  baptized  Miss  Reed  by  the  name  -of 
Mary  Agnes.  Pray,  worthy  father,  have  the  members  of  your 
church  no  pretension  to  their  baptismal  names  ? ” 

(Page  3d  of  the-  Answ?er.)  “ The  Superior  says,  “ 1 am  too 
old  now  to  change,  if  I would,  the  weapons  of  truth  for  those 
of  falsehood,  though  I should  in  the  latter  case,  oppose  Miss 
Reed  with  her  own  contemptible  means  of  warfare.”  What 
a pity  it  is  this  controversy  wTas  not  carried  on  a few  years 
ago,  or  that  the  Superior  was  not  younger,  for  then  she  might 
indulge  in  lies  and  deceit,  — the  only  reason  for  her  not  doing 
so  at  present,  being,  according  to  her  own  admission,  nothing 
but  her  age ! 

(Page  S.)  The  Superior  says,  “ I declared,  in  my  testimony 
on  the  trial  of  the  rioters,  that  the  vows  of  my  religious  order 


32 


were,  poverty,  chastity,  obedience  and  the  instruction  of  female 
youth,”  — not  ‘ poverty,  chastity,  and  obedience  ; to  separate 
ourselves  from  the  world,  and  to  follow  the  instructions  of  the 
Superior.’  We  are  unable  to  perceive  any  difference  between 
these  two  forms,  important  enough,  to  require  adjustment.  We 
suspect  that  the  clause  she  most  desired  to  get  rid  of,  is  that, 
in  which  the  nuns  are  represented  as  obliging  themselves  to 
follow  the  instructions  of  the  Superior.”  If  this  be  the  case, 
she  has  most  certainly  failed  ; for,  on  the  37th  page  she  remarks 
on  the  passage,  where  Miss  R.  makes  the  Superior  tell  her  she 
had  failed  in  obedience  to  her  — “ obedience  is  one  of  the  few 
rules  she  adverts  to  and  remembers  probably  from  the  reason 
of  her  numerous  admitted  infractions  of  it.” 

Again,  she  states  on  the  same  page,  that  the  profits  were 
expended  in  “embellishing  and  cultivating  the  land,  which  in 
1827  was  literally,  a barren  hill,  and  that  to  accomplish  this, 
one,  two,  or  three  men  were  constantly  kept  on  the  farm  at  the 
average  rate  of  fifteen  dollars  a month  and  board  ; and  in  the 
spring  and  summer,  ten  or  twelve  men  were  employed  for 
months  at  a time,  at  a dollar  a day.”  We  acknowledge  the 
right  of  people  to  do  what  they  please  with  their  own  property; 
no  one  would  be  foolish  enough  to  object  to  the  proprietors  of 
Catholic  Seminaries,  strictly  and  truly  such,  spending  their 
money  as  they  saw  fit ; but  we  must  positively  affirm  that  it 
is  the  height  of  absurdity  in  the  members  of  the  Convent,  sol- 
emnly to  devote  themselves  to  a life  of  poverty,  and  then,  in 
direct  opposition  to  their  vow,  to  lay  out,  adorn,  and  beautify 
Mount  Benedict,  until  it  was  nearly  metamorphosed  into  an 
earthly  paradise,  and  to  crown  its  summit  with  a splendid 
mansion.  These  alterations,  we  admit,  were  an  ornament  to 
Charlestown,  but  yet  no  one  can  doubt,  that  their  real  design 
was,  the  gratification  of  the  Sisterhood.  Offer  such  a residence, 
and  such  a garden,  separated  from  the  vow  to  seclusion,  (which 
the  Superior  even  says  is  not  taken  by  them,)  to  almost  any 
man  in  the  community,  no  matter  how  high  or  how  rich  he 
is,  and  see  if  he  would  not  gladly  make  the  exchange.  Simi- 


33 


lar  inconsistencies  have  been  manifested  from  time  immemori- 
al, in  the  monasteries  of  Europe,  the  members  of  which,  by 
their  vow,  doom  themselves  to  poverty  and  wretchedness, 
and  nevertheless,  luxuriate  in  the  most  delicious  retreats,  and 
live  in  mansions  that  tire  the  eye  with  their  gorgeous  magnifi- 
cence, experiencing  a happiness  that  the  Mahommetan  never 
dares  hope  for,  till  he  reaches  the  third  heaven,  and 

“ Black-eyed  Houris  wait  upon  his  steps.” 

(Page  16.)  “ It  is  singular  that  the  inmates  of  the  Com- 

munity should  be  so  far  duped  as  to  allow  themselves  to  trem- 
ble, in  approaching  me  ; particularly,  as  it  has  depended  on 
them  entirely , since  the  first  three  years  that  I have  been 
their  Superior,  to  depose  me,  and  to  choose  another  in  my 
stead,  should  I,  by  word,  or  action,  have  rendered  myself  ob- 
noxious to  their  censure.” 

Now,  keeping  this  paragraph  in  mind,  compare  with  it,  this 
statement  on  the  6th  page. 

“ I did  not  introduce  myself  or  the  community  into  Boston, 
but  in  1824,  came  at  the  earnest  solicitation  of  the  former 
Superior  and  her  sisters.  The  Superior,  having  lost  two  of  her 
sisters,  &c.  and  seeing  her  last  hour  approaching,  wished  me  to 
replace  her.  I acceded  to  her  wishes.”  How,  we  ask  the 
Superior,  can  you  get  over  this  palpable  contradiction  ? In 
one  part  of  your  work,  you  say,  “ the  deposing  and  the  choos- 
ing of  the  Superior  depend  entirely  on  the  nuns,  and  yet  here 
you  state  that  the  former  Superior  wished  you  to  succeed 
her,  the  nuns,  who  as  you  say,  have  the  ivhole  control, 
having  no  more  hand  in  the  transaction  than  if  they  did  not 
exist.  Ah,  Mrs.  Moffatt ! Mrs.  Moffatt ! did  you  ever  hear  of 
nuns,  on  their  sole  authority,  removing  the  head  of  their  com- 
munity ? They  would  as  soon  dare  to  cut  off  their  own 
heads ! 

The  contradiction  between  the  statements  of  the  Lady  Supe- 
rior and  Dr.  Byrne,  concerning  the  time  when  the  former 
became  acquainted  with  Miss  Reed,  is  so  plainly  shown,  and 


34 


the  ideas  are  so  ably  expressed  in  the  “ Reply  to  Dr.  Byrne,” 
from  which  we  have  already  quoted,  that  we  cannot  forbear 
extracting  that  part  of  the  article. 

The  writer,  who  signs  himself  “ Wolfangum,”  addresses 
Dr.  Byrne  as  follows. 

u You  say,  that  on  page  61,  Miss  R.  mentions  a sermon  she 
heard  on  Good  Friday,  and  which,  you  add,  was  April  1, 
(meaning  no  doubt  1831,)  and  that  from  what  she  says  then, 
and  from  other  parts  of  the  narrative,  a person  might  suppose 
that  she  had  frequently  visited,  and  been  well  acquainted  with 
the  Superior  before  she  was  introduced  to  me.  This,  however, 
I believe  was  not  the  case.”  Then,  father  Byrne,  you  don’t 
believe  the  Superior  tells  the  truth,  for  here,  again,  you  and 
she  have  got  hold  of  the  two  ends  of  the  fact,  pulling  different 
ways. 

“ You  say,  that  shortly  after  being  introduced  to  you,  she 
went  to  reside  with  Mrs.  Haynes,  where  she  remained,  till  she 
went  to  the  Convent.  Again,  you  say,  that  she  had  been  there 
a considerable  time  before  I yielded  to  her  wishes  to  give  her 
a letter  of  introduction  to  the  Superior,  and  you  add  that 
after  this,  you  saw  the  Superior,  and  that  she  only  consented 
to  see  Miss  R.  to  disabuse  her  of  her  intention  to  become 
a nun. 

li  All  this  must  have  happened,  according  to  your  own  story, 
long  after  March,  1831,  because,  you  say,  you  first  saw  Miss 
R.  in  March,  1832,  and  that  it  was  after  that  she  went  to  Mrs. 
Haynes,  and  that  she  had  been  staying  there  a “ considerable 
time.”  before  you  introduced  her  to  the  Superior,  and  had  never 
seen  her  before  that  time. 

“ Very  well,  this  is  your  side  of  the  case.  Now  what  says 
“ My  Lady  Superior  to  all  this  ? In  a letter  directed  to  Will- 
iam C.  Reed,  Esq.  she  says  u your  daughter  has  been  here 
repeatedly  since  last  November  soliciting  me  to  receive 
her.” 

11  There,  father  Byrne,  the  Superior  says  Miss  Reed  has  been 
at  the  Convent  repeatedly,  soliciting  Aer,  ever  since  Nov.  1830, 


35 


and  you  say  that  you  first  introduced  Miss  Reed  to  her  lady- 
ship, about  May  or  June,  1831,  some  six  months  after.” 

And  these  totally  irreconcileable  statements  are  made  by  two 
individuals,  who  have  urgently  called  public  attention  to  an 
error,  (if  it  be  such,)  made  by  Miss  Reed  with  regard  to  the 
time  of  her  entering  the  Convent. 

(Page  15.)  Miss  Reed  is  represented  as  making  use  of  such 
expressions  as  these ; — “ O,  if  I could  take  a cross,  and  go 
through  the  streets  of  Boston,  making  known  the  true  faith  ! 
O if  I could  preach  to  the  heretics,  and  make  known  to  them 
their  errors  ! &c.”  * * “ Such  exclamations  appear  to  us  to  be 
precisely  what  might  be  expected  from  an  enthusiastic  young 
woman,  entirely  under  the  influence  of  warm  and  bigoted  ad- 
vocates of  the  Catholic  faith.  They  were  doubtless  prompted 
by  the  conversations  she  heard  there,  and  afford  strong  con- 
firmation of  the  account  Miss  Reed  gives  of  the  charitable 
and  good-natured  remarks  concerning  Dr.  Beecher,  as  sta- 
ted on  the  116th  page  of  her  book,  to  which  we  refer  the 
reader. 

We  pass  over  the  parts  of  the  pamphlet  in  which  it  is  grave - 
ly  affirmed,  that  Mrs.  Mary  Ursula  does  not  say  daown  for 
down , although  the  world  is,  at  the  same  time,  assured 
of  the  vitally  important  and  deeply  interesting  fact,  that 
she  does,  however,  pronounce  in  a way  not  very  agreeable 
to  the  refined  ears  of  the  community. 

We  shall  not  notice  such  declarations  as  “We  had  no 
such  rules.”  — uComplin  was  not  a morning  prayer  ” — “ No 
such  circumstances  ever  took  place”  — “ Pages  106,  &c.,  de- 
pict Miss  Reed’s  talent  in  the  art  of  dissimulation”  — “The 
falsity  and  absurdity  of  page  109,  can  be  easily  detected  ” — 
“The  story  of  her  falling  prostrate  is  of  course false,}  — 
“Pages  157  and  158  are  false ” — “ Pages  155  and  156  are 
remarkable,  only  for  the  acknowledgments  of  the  petty  tricks 
which  seem  so  familiar  to  her,”  &c.  &c.  &c.  Some  of  these 
expressions  relate  to  trifling  particulars  — and  as  to  the  others, 
we  will  not  enter  the  lists  in  which  scurrility  is  resorted,  to  as 


36 


the  principal  means  of  defence.  The  Superior  says  “ she  has 
been  taught  to  despise  a lie.”  We  sincerely  wish  that  she  had 
been  also  taught  to  abhor  the  use  of  the  word. 

(Page  16.)  “ We  never  supposed,  when  Miss  Reed  was 

with  us  that  she  was  a spy”  This  remark  comes  with  an 
ill  grace  from  a lady,  who,  was  believed  by  the  scholars  to  listen, 
(or  employ  some  one  to  listen,)  secretly  to  the  conversation 
they  held  with  one  another  after  retiring  to  bed,  and  to  en- 
deavor to  overhear  what  they  said  to  their  parents,  when  visit- 
ed by  them- 

(Page  74.)  “ There  was  no  office  of  adoration  to  the  Blessed 
Virgin.  Catholics  honor , in  a special  manner,  the  Virgin  Ma- 
ry, as  she  is  the  mother  of  Christ ; but  they  do  not  adore  her. 
Adoration  they  pay  to  none  but  God.”  In  contradiction  to 
this  assertion,  we  will  quote  from  the  “ Catholic  Manual,”  the 
authority  of  which,  we  presume  the  Superior  will  not  question, 
merely  premising,  that  the  meaning  of  “ adore”  as  shown  by 
its  derivation,  is  to  pray  to. 

[From  the  44th  page  of  the  Catholic  Manual,  printed  at  Baltimore.] 

A PRATER  TO  THE  BLESSED  VIRGIN. 

We  fly  to  thy  patronage,  O holy  Mother  of  God,  despise  net 
our  petition  in  our  necessities  ; but  deliver  us  from  all  dangers, 
O ever  glorious  and  holy  Virgin  ! ”, 

On  the  46th  page  of  the  same  work,  we  find  the  following 
prayer. 

A PRAYER  TO  IMPLORE  THE  PATRONAGE  OF  THE  BLESSED  VIRGIN  MARY. 

“ O holy  Mary ! my  sovereign  Queen,  and  most  loving 
Mother,  receive  me  under  thy  blessed  patronage,  &c.  this  day, 
and  every  day,  and  at  the  hour  of  my  death , I recommend  to 
thee  my  soul  and  body.  I commit  to  thy  care  all  my  hopes 
and  comforts,  all  my  afflictions  and  miseries,  my  life  and  my 
death f &c.  We  ask  confidently,  are  expressions  like  these 
made  use  of,  only  in  honor  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.  Do  they 
not  constitute  that  worship  which  Christ  says  is  due  to  the 
Supreme  Being  alone  ? 


37 


(Page  23.)  “ The  poetry  which  she  speaks  of  was  com- 

posed for  her  by  Mrs.  Mary  Austin.”  This  fact  speaks  vol- 
umes in  favor  of  the  intelligence  and  'polite  acquirements  of 
the  accomplished  females  of  Mount  Benedict.  Why,  a school 
girl  would  have  been  soundly  whipped  for  offering  up  such  a 
piece  of  composition  ! Take  the  very  first  line  of  it. 

**  My  dear  ma  mare , you  shall  allways  find,  &c.” 

Has  Mrs.  Moffatt  ever  heard  the  story  of  the  girl,  who,  after 
being  shut  up  in  a room  three  long  hours  to  write  a letter  to 
her  aunt,  could  get  no  farther  than  “ My  dear  aw/,”  — and 
who  heard,  as  the  reward  of  all  her  efforts,  the  cutting  question, 
“ What ! child,  have  you  been  confined  here  so  long  only  to 
call  your  aunt  a pismire  ? ” Similar  dismay  must  have  been 
exhibited  by  the  Superior,  on  reading  these  finished  verses, 
and  we  can  easily  imagine  the  countenance  she  assumed, 
when,  turning  to  the  inspired  author,  she,  perhaps,  exclaimed, 
Mary  Austin,  Mary  Austin  ! — have  you  been  for  so  many 
years  placed  in  the  midst  of  the  advantages  afforded  by  my 
elegant  society,  only  to  call  your  mother  a mare l 

An  interesting  portion  of  the  “ Answer,”  is  that  in  which 
Miss  Reed  is  made  to  enumerate  the  number  of  clothes  she 
had  on  her  bed.  We  will  give  the  whole  of  the  story  for  the 
amusement  of  our  readers. 

“ One  cold  day,  I asked  Miss  Reed,  how  she  had  slept  the 
preceding  night.  She  said  her  feet  had  been  cold.  I was 
surprised,  (for  what  reason  we  certainly  can’t  perceive,  it  is 
not  a very  surprising  thing  for  folks  to  be  cold  in  cold  weather,) 
and  telling  her  I feared  that  her  bed  had  not  been  attended  to, 
I asked  her  to  specify  what  bed-clothes  she  had  ; to  which 
she  replied,  cotton  and  flannel  sheets,  five  blankets,  two  com- 
forters and  a counterpane.”  Can  the  Superior  expect  to  find 
any  one  of  sufficient  “ gullibility  ” to  swallow  this  account 
with  all  its  accompaniments.  If  she  is  so  oppressively  liberal 
to  the  other  ladies  of  the  Institution,  they  have,  instead  of  a 
severe  Superior,  one  who  almost  smothers  them  with  kind- 
4 


38 


ness.  Sure  are  we  that  under  this  superincumbent  pressure, 
the  whole  sisterhood  must,  to  use  the  Lady  Superior’s  elegant 
language,  be  as  soft  and  flat  as  “ pancakes .” 

We  next  come  to  the  Superior’s  contradiction  of  Miss  Reed’s 
statement  with  regard  to  the  food  given  her  while  in  the  nun- 
nery. Mrs.  Moffatt  says,  “ Miss  Reed,  being  a person  of  feeble 
constitution,  and  not  a member  of  the  Community,  had  even 
delicacies  which  they  had  not.”  On  turning  to  Miss  R.’s  book 
(page  83,)  we  ascertain  what  these  delicacies  were:  it  is  there 
stated  that  she  twice  received  from  the  Superior’s  table,  as  a 
great  favor,  some  “ apple  parings .” 

(Page  25.)  “Had  we  felt  inclined  to  use  such  cruelty,  as 
to  confine  Mrs.  Mary  Francis,  the  Selectmen  of  Charlestown, 
as  well  as  the  public  at  large,  who  have  had  ample  opportu- 
nity of  examining  the  Convent  since  its  destruction,  will  be 
able  to  assert  whether  or  not  we  had  places  suitable  for  execut- 
ing so  shocking  a design.”  “ The  public  at  large  ” have  cer- 
tainly had  the  best  means  of  judging,  whether  or  no,  there 
were  cells  in  the  Convent  before  it  was  burnt  down,  by  gazing 
at  the  bare  wall.  Such  an  idea  is  hardly  better  than  that  of 
the  man  who  thought  people  would  understand  exactly  what 
kind  of  a house  he  had  to  sell,  by  inspecting  a brick  he  had 
taken  from  it. 

With  regard  to  the  foolish  conversation  the  Bishop  held  with 
Mary  Magdelene,  about  imploring  the  Almighty  to  send  down 
a bushel  of  gold  from  heaven,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a 
college  on  Bunker  Hill,  and  also  the  question  he  put  to  her  as 
to  when  she  expected  to  get  to  heaven,  — we  see  no  improba- 
bility in  Miss  R.’s  account.  Mary  Austin,  according  to  all 
representations,  is  declared  to  be  very  simple  and  illiterate,  and 
it  is  a remarkable  corroboration  of  Miss  R.’s  assertion,  that  she 
states  the  principal  part  of  these  silly  observations,  if  not  all  of 
them,  to  have  been  directed  by  the  Bishop  to  Mary  Magdelene, 
who  was  the  sister  of  Mary  Austin,  and  was  therefore,  proba- 
bly, not  better  informed. 


39 


(Page  142.)  “ Had  such  a remark  been  made,  says  the 

Superior,  by  any  one  in  the  community,  that  she  hoped  there 
was  not  another  Judas  among  them,  it  would  have  been  very 
appropriate.”  Then  she  admits  a grand  point  that  is  at  issue 
between  her  and  Miss  Reed,  viz.  that  there  had  been 
“ another  Judas ” among  them,  who  was  Mary  Francis, 
alias  Miss  Kennedy,  and  if  so,  that  this  woman  ran  away 
from  the  Convent,  through  dislike  of  the  treatment  she  received 
there,  or  was  sent  away  from  it,  for  if  she  had  experienced 
kind  usage,  and  entire  harmony  of  feeling  had  subsisted  be- 
tween her  and  the  Superior,  there  would  not  have  been  the 
least  reason  in  the  world  for  her  turning  “ Judas? 

We  come  now  to  a part  of  the  Reply  in  which  the  Superior 
really  makes  a fair  hit ! W e acknowledge  it  to  be  such.  The 
subject  is  important,  and  Mrs.  Moffatt  magnanimously  con- 
fesses the  fault  she  was  guilty  of  in  the  matter.  The  poignan- 
cy of  her  ridicule,  too,  is  so  great  that  there  is  no  resisting  it,  — 
it  is  absolutely  withering ! Let  us  see  what  she  says  : 

“ Miss  R.  sent,  a long  time  after  she  left,  for  two  silk  gowns ; 
and,  in  order  to  exonerate  the  Institution  from  (the  charge,  we 
suppose  she  meant)  of  having  defrauded  her  of  rightful 
property,  it  may  be  well  to  mention  here,  that  at  the  time 
we  were  expecting  the  Cholera,  and  while,  of  course,  we  were 
making  all  due  exertion,  to  free  the  habitation  of  everything 
that  might  cause  impure  air,  necessity  forced  us  to  commit 
them  to  the  flames.”  What  a sublime  spectacle  the  conflagra- 
gration  must  have  presented.  The  nuns,  it  may  be,  marched 
out  into  the  Convent  Yard,  in  regular  file,  with  the  Lady  Su- 
perior at  their  head,  and  the  warlike  and  gallant  Peter  Rossi- 
ter,  elevating  on  high  the  obnoxious  articles,  on  the  extremity 
of  a pitch-fork,  and  we  dare  say,  that  Mary  Austin,  who  ap- 
pears to  be  the  Sappho  of  the  Community,  was  prevailed  upon 
to  deliver  a poem  on  the  occasion.  Granting  the  Superior’s 
statement  to  be  true,  it  is  certainly  a strange  way  to  defend  the 
Institution  from  the  charge  of  unlawfully  keeping  the  property, 
to  declare  that  they  burnt  it  up,  — a method  similar  to  that 


40 


often  adopted  in  Spain  by  the  Inquisitors,  to  exonerate  them- 
selves from  the  accusation  of  embezzling  property,  except  that 
the  latter  pocketed  the  money)  and  committed  the  owner  to  the 
flames. 

We  would  ask,  respectfully,  of  course,  whether  it  be  not 
a possible  supposition,  that  the  silk  gowns  were  contaminated 
by  staying  in  the  Convent,  especially  as  they  remained  there 
“ so  long,”  and  Miss  R.,  during  the  whole  time  she  continued 
at  Mount  Benedict,  was  obliged  to  wear  “ pongee,  in  order  that  ♦ 
she  might  have  the  uniform  of  the  pupils.” 

But,  after  all,  supposing  Mrs.Moffatt  states  the  fact,  and  it  is 
not  of  the  least  consequence,  what  does  it  prove,  but  that  Miss 
R.,  on  leaving  the  Convent,  put  away  from  herself  everything 
that  could  defile  her.  Well  would  it  be,  if  all  persons  connect- 
ed with  Catholic  establishments  were  equally  careful. 

W^e  have  now,  we  are  glad  to  say,  done  with  the  frivolous 
and  ridiculous  parts  of  the  Reply.  If,  in  answering  what  was 
nonsensical  or  contemptible,  we  have  indulged  too  much  in 
levity,  we  can  only  plead,  in  our  defence,  the  common  saying 
that  “ ridicule  must  be  met  with  ridicule,”  and,  likewise,  our 
belief,  that  passages  of  the  Reply  are  too  absurd,  to  demand 
serious  comment.  Whether,  in  noticing  such  portions,  we  have 
been  carried  by  the  impulse  of  the  moment  too  far,  or  not,  — 
we  sincerely  rejoice  that  we  have  finished  them,  and  are  now 
returning  to  the  straight  path  of  sober  discussion. 

There  are  important  questions  before  us  to  be  decided. 
Let  us  approach  them  with  the  utmost  impartiality  and  candor, 
and  determine  to  abide  by  whatever  result  reason  and  common 
sense  justify. 

1 . The  first  question  that  offers  itself  to  our  consideration  is — 
Was  Miss  Reed  admitted  into  the  Convent  to  become  a nun? 

Miss  Reed,  on  the  55th  page  of  “ Six  Months  in  a Convent,” 
says,  “ she  (that  is,  the  Superior,)  inquired  in  what  capacity  I 
desired  to  enter  the  institution,  whether  as  a Recluse,  or  a 
scholar,  &c.  I replied,  that  I did  not  consider  my  education 
complete  ; that  I wished  to  go  into  the  school,  attached  to  the 


41 


nunnery,  on  the  same  terms  as  other  pupils,  until  I had  made 
sufficient  progress  to  take  the  veil  and  become  a Recluse.” 

Now  for  the  Lady  Superior’s  story.  “ Our  design  in  ad- 
mitting her,  was  not  to  fit  her  for  becoming  a teacher  in  the 
Convent,  nor  a recluse  ; but  to  enable  her  to  obtain  sufficient 
education  to  keep  a small  school,”  &c. 

Here  the  two  parties  are  completely  at  variance.  Let  us 
inquire  which  tells  the  most  straight  forward,  consistent  and 
probable  story. 

Dr.  Byrne,  in  his  letter  to  the  Courier,  says,  u I used  to  tell 
Miss  R.  that  I thought  she  would  not  and  could  not  be  received 
as  an  Ursuline  at  Mount  Benedict,”  of  course  implying  that 
she  had  told  him  she  would  like  to  be.  He  further  remarks, 
“ that  he  saw  the  Superior,  and  told  her  he  did  not  con- 
sider Miss  Reed  a fit  person  to  become  a member  of  the  com- 
munity, that  is,  an  Ursuline;  — that  he  wished  her  to  see 
Miss  Reed,  to  disabuse  her  of  her  notions  about  becoming  a 
nun.” 

Now  the  Superior  makes  statements  totally  irreconcilable 
with  the  foregoing  testimony  of  Dr.  Byrne.  She  says  “ Miss 
Reed,  having  prevailed  on  the  Rev.  Mr.  Byrne  to  write  to  me, 
requesting  I would  have  a conversation  with  her,  I consented 
to  see  her  twice  in  the  course  of  nine  months.  In  each  of 
these  visits,  she  solicited  most  earnestly  to  be  admitted  as  a 
servant ; and  assured  me  she  both  could  and  would  be  able 
to  wash,  iron,  scrub  the  floors,”  &c. 

Again,  on  the  l‘2th  page  of  the  “Answer,”  it  is  asserted  that 
u Miss  Reed  did  not  say  she  wished  to  go  into  the  school,  until 
she  had  made  sufficient  progress  to  take  the  veil,  but  asked 
admittance  as  a servant , even  after  I proposed,  at  the  third 
interview,  that  she  should  be  a pupil”  Now,  we  ask,  if  these 
two  stories  are  not  inconsistent.  Dr.  Byrne  says  that  she  told 
him  “ it  was  her  wish  to  become  an  Ursuline  ; — the  Superior 
on  the  other  hand  declares,  that  she  requested  her  most  ear- 
nestly to  admit  her  as  a servant , and  does  not  even  hint  that 
she  desired  to  join  the  sisterhood.  But  it  may  be  answered, 
*4 


42 


perhaps,  Miss  Reed  did  tell  one  story  to  Dr.  Byrne,  and  another 
to  the  Superior,  which  dissimulation  corresponds  to  what 
some  folks  say  of  her  character.  This  cannot  be  believed  for 
a moment.  We  put  it  to  any  candid  person,  whether  it  is  not 
altogether  incredible,  that  a young  woman,  who,  with  tears 
entreats  a Catholic  priest  to  put  her  in  the  way  of  taking  the 
veil,  — who  is  so  earnest  in  the  matter,  that  she  is  charged  by 
him  with  turning  Catholic,  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  gain 
admittance  into  the  Convent  — is  it  not  incredible  that  this 
woman,  when  an  interview  is  obtained  for  her  with  the  Supe- 
rior, that  she  may  express  this  wish  and  have  some  conversa- 
tion with  her  on  the  subject,  — should  not  make  the  most  dis- 
tant allusion. — so  far  as  we  can  gather  from  the  Superior’s 
account,  — to  her  inclination  to  become  a recluse,  but  should, 
(O  what  a fail  was  there,)  “most  earnestly  solicit  to  be  em- 
ployed as  a servant , to  scrub  the  floor , and  to  do  other  labo- 
rious work.” 

Again  ; Miss  Reed  is  described  by  Mrs.  Moffatt  as  not  know- 
iny  how  to  read,  write,  or  sew  with  tolerable  decency,  and  as 
having  already  been  out  to  service.  We  wish  to  know  then, 
what  there  was  in  Miss  R.’s  situation,  that  should  make  the 
Superior  refuse  to  receive  her  as  a servant , but  “propose  to 
admit  her  as  a pupil.”  Is  this  her  usual  habit  with  all  who 
apply  to  become  her  domestics  ? The  Superior  knows , that 
Miss  R.  mentioned  to  her,  her  strong  inclination  to  take  the 
veil,  and  that  she  was  admitted,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether 
she  was  a fit  person  to  join  the  community. 

But  we  have  not  concluded  the  evidence  on  this  head.  It  is 
known  to  the  pupils,  that  Miss  R.  wore  the  dress  of  a novice , 
w hile  in  the  institution,  and  assumed  it  on  going  there ; 
and  if  so,  she  was  received , and  she  continued  in  the  Convent, 
as  a candidate  for  the  veil,  — all  which  is  denied  by  the  Su- 
perior. 

There  is  one  part  of  the  proof  we  have  not  yet  brought  for- 
ward, which  is  clear  and  forcible.  It  is  this,  Dr.  Bryne  says, 
that  in  the  letter  of  Sept.  2d,  the  Superior  writes,  “ I think  it 


43 


best  that  Miss  Reed  should  make  her  confession  and  com- 
munion before  she  enters.”  We  ask  you  directly,  “My  Lady 
Superior,”  do  you  think  to  impose  so  far  on  the  common  sense 
of  your  readers,  as  to  make  them  believe  you  required  a girl  — 
who  asked,  as  you  say,  only  to  be  your  “ servant , and  to  scrub 
your  floor,  and  whom,  according  to  your  book  you  admitted  in 
no  other  capacity  than  that  of  a pupil  — to  make  confession 
and  communion  ? ” The  idea  is  too  absurd  to  be  entertained  a 
moment.  It  is  customary  for  those  who  euter  nunneries,  as 
novices,  to  go  through  these  ceremonies,  and  Miss  Reed’s  being 
obliged  to  go  through  them  shows,  conclusively,  that  she  went 
to  Mount  Benedict  as  a candidate  for  the  veil. 

2.  Let  us  now  attend  to  another  question  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance. Did  anything  improper,  ridiculous,  or  inhuman  take 
place  in  the  Convent,  while  Miss  Reed  was  connected  with  the 
Institution  ? 

In  the  outset,  we  cannot  but  lay  great  stress  upon  the  fact, 
(for  it  is  such,)  that  after  all  the  testimony  they  have  been  able 
to  collect  upon  the  subject  — with  the  exception  of  the  occa- 
sion when  the  Selectmen  of  Charlestown  examined  the  build- 
ing, and,  setting  aside  Dr.  Thompson,  the  physician  of  the 
establishment,  and  Mrs.  Silas  Bullard,  who  visited  it  when 
her  child  was  sick,  — they  cannot  produce  a single  Protestant 
who  ever  saw  the  apartments  of  the  nuns,  nay  more,  who  ever 
went  beyond  the  parlor.  In  opposition  to  the  inference  that 
must  inevitably  follow  from  this  want  of  proof,  Mrs.  Moffatt 
makes  the  very  indefinite  assertion,  — 11  Many  ladies  and  gen- 
tlemen, the  parents  and  friends  of  the  pupils  were  introduced 
into  the  interior  of  the  Convent : ” and  again  — “ Our  dw  elling 
was  accessible,  at  proper  times,  to  the  parents  and  friends  of  its 
numerous  inmates.”  We  ask  her  to  establish  these  assertions, 
and  she  tells  us  to  be  satisfied  by  the  evidence  of  their  physi- 
cian and  a lady  who  visited  her  daughter  w hen  ill.  The  Lady 
Superior  has  lamentably  failed  in  quieting  public  suspicion 
upon  this  subject.  What  satisfactory  reason  can  be  assigned 
for  this  extreme  secrecy  and  caution  ? We  ask  the  question 
significautlv  and  seriously  — will  the  Superior  answer  it? 


44 


There  is  some  inconsistency  in  her  statements  on  this  point, 
to  which  we  will  briefly  advert. 

On  page  5th  of  her  book,  she  observes,  “ Every  one,  wishing 
to  become  well  acquainted  with  the  whole  interior  discipline  of 
both  pupils  and  teachers,  could  easily  obtain  information  from 
any  of  the  young  ladies,  who  have  been  in  the  Institution,  since 
the  school  was  opened  to  the  present  day.”  The  scholars  # 
then,  she  says,  are  well-informed  as  to  the  whole  management 
of  the  Convent,  and  yet  on  page  7th.  she  remarks,  “Miss  Reed 
even  could  have  enlightened  the  Committee  on  this  point,” 
(the  point  has  no  relation  to  our  present  purpose,)  “as  she  says 
she  saw -but  little  of  the  scholars,  and  mentions,  as  an  extraor- 
dinary fact,  that  they  were,  sometimes  at  vacation,  permitted 
to  enter  the  community,  and  embrace  the  Religieuse.”  Mrs. 
Moflatt  admits  then  Miss  R.’s  statement  to  be  correct,  else 
how  could  she  have  enlightened  the  Committee,  and  if  so,  how 
could  the  scholars,  who  saw  the  nuns  “ sometimes  at  vaca- 
tion,”  be  “ well  acquainted  with  the  whole  interior  discipline 
of  pupils  and  teachers  ? ” 

We  will  now  proceed  to  look  more  narrowly  into  the  Insti- 
tution; bearing  in  mind  the  privacy  and  mystery  that  are 
observed  in  regard  to  it. 

At  the  trial  of  John  R.  Buzzell,  one  of  the  Convent  rioteis, 
Mary  Benedict  testified,  “ the  nuns  kneel  to  receive  the  Bish- 
op's benediction.”  The  Superior  stated  : “ they  make  confes- 
sions to  the  Bishop  — I make  confession  to  him  — it  is  done 
once  a week.”  In  her  Reply,  she  says,  “ We  never  knelt  in  the 
presence  of  the  Bishop,  except  two  or  three  times  a year,  to  ask 
his  benediction.”  In  order  to  obtain  a little  information  con- 
cerning the  method  of  confession,  we  looked  at  the  137th  page 
of  the  Catholic  Manual,  used  by  the  Catholics  in  this 
country,  and  the  very  first  words  we  saw  were,  — the  peni- 
tent, kneeling  down  at  the  side  of  his  ghostly  father,  makes 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  asks  his  blessing:  Pray,  Father,  give 
me  your  blessing,  for  I have  sinned.  Then  he  says  the  confit- 
eor  ; I confess,  &c.,  “ and  this  is  the  form  that  is  alicays  gone 


45 


through.  So,  it  appears,  that  every  time  confession  is  made, 
the  penitent  kneels  ; — the  Superior  admits  that  the  nuns  con- 
fess “once  a week,”  and  nevertheless  declares  “that  they  never 
kneel  in  presence  of  the  Bishop  except  two  or  three  times  a 
year”  How  will  falsehood  be  discovered,  when  it  most  seems 
to  wear  the  habiliments  of  truth?  We  wish  to  know  too, 
whether  the  Superior  will  say  that  the  scholars  were  not  obliged 
to  kneel  before  her  and  kiss  the  floor  when  guilty  of  some  of- 
fences. The  scholars  say  they  were,  and  taking  this  fact  in 
connection  with  the  preceding  statement,  will  it  not  appear,  that 
kissing  the  floor  was  an  important  and  frequent  occupation  of 
the  inmates  of  the  Community  ? 

It  is  asserted,  too,  by  some  of  the  pupils  that  have  attended 
the  Convent  school,  that  “ Lives  of  the  Saints  ” and  books  of 
a similar  character  containing  marvellous  stories,  were  given 
them  to  read  aloud  at  table,  the  first  one  who  got  through  eat- 
ing, commencing  to  read,  and.  in  this  way,  handing  the  book 
around. 

We  have  before  expressed  the  opinion  that  there  is  no  im- 
probability in  Miss  Reed’s  account  of  the  trifling  and  silly  re- 
marks made  by  the  Bishop,  when  he  went  to  the  Convent. 
The  chief  of  them,  were  addressed  to  Mary  Magdalene,  who 
was  employed  in  the  kitchen.  The  story  of  the  bushel  of 
gold  is  too  nonsensical  to  be  invented  by  any  human  imagina- 
tion. Miss  Reed,  at  least,  would  not  have  made  it  up. 

If  then,  as  we  trust,  we  have  proved  the  assertion  of  the 
Superior  — that  Miss  R.  was  not  admitted  into  the  Convent,  to 
become  a Recluse,  — to  be  untrue,  as  also  her  statement  concern- 
ing the  kneeling  of  the  nuns,  if  there  are  numerous  prevarica- 
tions and  contradictions  in  her  book,  that  show  it  cannot  be  the 
offspring  of  truth  — then  is  it  not  probable  that  she  has  falsified 
in  her  relation  of  the  treatment  she  gave  Mary  Magdalene,  and 
that  there  was  in  reality  some  inhumau  conduct  manifested  by 
her  in  that  case,  — especially  as  after  pronouncing  Miss  Reed's 

whole  narration  of  the  affair  inaccurate,”  the  only  error  she 
points  out  in  it,  is,  that  Miss  R.  said,  “ after  depositing  the 
coffin  in  the  tomb,  the  clergy  retired  to  dinner,”  “ whereas,” 


46 


the  Answer  observes,  “ the  coffin  was  deposited  in  the  tomb  at 
eight  o’clock  in  the  morning.”  Had  Miss  R.’s  story  been  a 
tissue  of  errors,  could  not  the  Lady  Superior  have  found  more 
important  ones,  and  is  not  the  circumstance  of  her  not  having 
done  so,  strong  proof  that  there  were  no  such  errors  ? 

3.  Whether  Miss  Reed  was  detained  in  the  Convent  against 
her  will,  and  whether  Mrs.  Moffalt  has  given  a satisfactory 
answer  to  the  declaration  of  Miss  R.  that  it  was  intended  to 
make  an  attempt  to  send  her  to  Canada  ? 

The  determination  of  this  question  is  difficult,  in  consequence 
of  our  limited  information ; all  our  knowledge  on  the  subject 
being  derived  from  what  little  the  Superior  and  the  Bishop 
choose  to  say,  added  to  what  Miss  Reed  relates.  She  also 
states  that  Miss  R.  asked  her  “ if  she  could  not  get  her  into 
another  Convent,”  and  that  she  replied,  “she  would  see  if 
anything  could  be  done  to  effect  her  wishes.” 

The  only  thing  we  can  do  is,  to  inquire,  which  party  tells 
the  plainest  and  most  consistent  story.  If  Miss  Reed’s  narra- 
tion does  not  hold  together,  let  us  reject  it ; and  on  the  other 
hand,  if  there  are  manifest  contradictions  in  the  Superior’s  ac- 
count, let  us  abandon  it,  as  inaccurate,  and  abide  by  what  Miss 
R.  says. 

The  Lady  Superior’s  statement  is,  that  Miss  Reed  was 
“ disappointed  in  not  being  allowed  to  take  the  veil,  and  conse- 
quently  eloped,”  and  that  she  felt  “ rejoiced  Miss  R.  had  done 
so,  because  she  had  thereby  spared  them  the  painful  necessity 
of  forcing  her  to  leave  at  the  expiration  of  six  months.” 

Between  these  statements  there  is  a contrariety  that  will 
strike  every  one  at  first  sight ; — for  how  could  she  be  under 
the  necessity  of  forcing  a girl  to  leave  the  Convent,  who 
asked  her  expressly  “ to  get  her  into  some  other  Convent f 
If  it  be  said  that  Miss  R.  made  this  request,  because  Mrs. 
Moffatt  had  told  her  she  should  not  stay  at  Mount  Benedict 
the  answer  is  ready,  that  this  could  not  have  been  the  case,  be- 
cause Mrs.  Moffatt  at  the  trial  of  Buzzel,  nearly  four  years 
after  Miss  R.  left,  testified  on  oath,  that  “ when  Miss  Reed 
came,  she  was  to  stay  six  months,  and  she  was  to  be  taken  in 


47 


afterwards  if  she  desired  it.”  There  is  a two-fold  difficulty  in 
the  Superior’s  story.  She  feared  “ she  would  be  under  the 
necessity  of  forcing  a girl  to  leave  the  Convent,”  who  requested 
to  be  sent  to  some  other  institution  ; and,  secondly,  Miss  R. 
was  to  be  permitted  to  stay  longer  than  six  months  if  she  de- 
sired it ; and  yet  the  Superior  would  force  her  to  quit,  if  she  did. 

But  we  have  not  quite  done  with  the  testimony  of  the  Supe- 
rior on  the  trial  of  the  Convent  rioiers.  “Miss  Reed  was  to 
be  taken  in  afterwards”  (that  is,  at  the  expiration  of  the 
six  months)  “if  she  desired  it.”  Taken  in  ! — into  what?  — 
the  Convent?  — of  course  not,  she  was  already  there.  We 
ask  again,  into  what  was  she  to  be  taken  ? No  satisfactory 
answer  can  be  given,  except  that  she  was  to  be  taken  into 
the  Community, — she  was  to  become  a Recluse,  — and  how 
does  this  agree  with  the  assertion  of  the  Superior,  that  she  ap- 
plied for  admittance  as  a servant,  and  although  this  privilege 
was  denied  her,  that  she  was  received  as  a pupil,  and  never  as 
a candidate  for  the  veil. 

The  Superior  says,  “ Supposing  us  to  be  so  ignorant  or  stupid 
as  to  imagine  we  could  carry  Miss  R.  to  Canada  against  her 
will,  without  discovery  of  it  to  the  world,  it  cannot  be  believed 
for  a moment,  that  we  could  rid  the  Community  of  her,  and 
confine  her  in  Canada,  without  exposing  ourselves  to  certain 
conviction  and  punishment  by  the  means  of  her  friends,*  who 
knew  she  was  with  us,  and  who  could  have  at  any  time  com- 
pelled us  to  produce  her.” 

Yet  this  same  Superior,  who  felt  so  much  concern  for  Miss 
R.’s  friends,  and  who  in  another  part  of  her  book  says,  she  ad- 
vised her  “to  return  to  her  father,  beg  his  forgiveness,  and  be 
a dutiful  daughter,”  received  her  into  the  Convent  — detained 
her  to  their  great  displeasure,  and  finally  agreed  to  attempt  her 
removal  to  some  other  Institution,  against  the  known  desire  cf 
her  friends,  and  without  apprising  them  of  her  intention. 

(Page  37.)  The  Superior  remarks,  “Yet  strange  to  say? 
she  nowhere  says  that  she  asked  permission  to  quit  the  Con- 

* As  her  friends  never  saw  her,  when  they  called  at  the  Convent,  how 
how  could  they  know  whether  she  was  removed  or  not  ? 


48 


vent,  but  left  it,  as  she  has  other  places,  clandestinely.”  Now 
the  truth  is,  that  Miss  R.  did,  according  to  the  Superior’s  own 
admission,  (page  35,)  ask  leave  “ to  quit  the  Convent,”  as  she 
expressly  states  on  the  154th  page  of  her  book.  “ I begged  her 
to  let  me  see  some  of  my  friends  there ,”  (at  Mount  Benedict,) 
“or  permit  me  to  return  to  the  world.”  — The  Superior’s  “ac- 
curacy is  remarkable.” 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  other  side.  What  is  Miss  Reed’s 
story  ? It  is  simply  that  she  has  become  dissatisfied  with  the 
Convent,  and  asked  permission  to  go  to  some  other  — a fact 
which  is  acknowledged  on  both  sides,  — that  she  mentioned  the 
Institution  at  Emmetsburg,  but  was  told  she  could  not  go  there 
— that  a Convent  in  Canada  was  proposed,  to  which  she  ob- 
jected, and  that  overhearing  a plot  to  send  her  to  Canada,  and 
fearing  an  attempt  upon  her  personal  freedom,  she  eloped. 

Are  there  any  such  inaccuracies  in  this  relation  as  have  been 
pointed  out  in  that  of  the  Superior  ? Much  has  been  said  of 
the  impossibility  of  sending  Miss  R.  to  Canada  in  three  days, 
since  the  stage  takes  four , and  also,  that  “ site  would  certainly 
cry  out  at  some  of  the  stopping  places.”  It  may  be  that  Miss 
R.  was  mistaken  as  to  the  word,  — that  Canada  was  not  the 
place,  — this  point  was  immaterial  — and  as  to  her  crying  out, 
it  is  well  known  that  persons  have  been  secretly  transported 
from  one  spot  to  another,  without  the  fact  being  discovered  by 
any  one  on  the  road.  The  only  important  questions  are  — 
Was  there  any  reason  for  detaining  MissR.,  or  for  sending  her 
off  clandestinely  ? And  secondly,  — Could  she  have  left  the 
Convent  openly? 

If,  as  we  have  been  attempting  to  show,  the  forms  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Convent  were  absurd,  if  foolish  conver- 
sations took  place  between  the  Bishop  and  some  of  the 
community,  if,  (and  the  Superior  has  pointed  out  only  one 
inaccuracy  in  the  relation,  and  that  a trifling  one,)  the 
story  of  the  cruel  treatment  of  Mary  Magdelene  be  true, 
then  there  were  the  most  urgent  reasons  why  an  individu- 
al, who  had  seen  the  whole  of  their  conduct,  and  had 


49 


! shown  signs  of  disapprobation,  should  be  closely  watched, 
should  be  prevented,  at  all  risks,  from  quitting  the  Institu- 
tion, or  be  sent  to  some  other.  If  the  necessity  existed, 
then  Miss  R.  of  course,  could  not  have  left  openly  ; and 
this  statement  is  corroborated  by  the  fact,  that  a relation 
of  the  wife  of  General  Van  Ness,  several  years  ago,  ran 
away  from  the  Catholic  establishment  at  Georgetown, 
which  the  lady,  who  was  possessed  of  great  dignity  of 
character,  would  never  have  done,  had  it  been  in  her  power 
to  have  left  publicly.  Is  it  unlikely  that  Miss  R.  was  simi- 
larly situated  in  the  Ursuline  Community  ? And  besides, 
what  motive  could  Miss  R.  have,  in  leaving  as  she  did  ? 
Was  it  in  order  to  make  money  by  publishing  an  account 
of  the  Convent  ? If  so,  she  certainly  has  not  consulted 
her  interest  in  keeping  back  her  book  for  four  years,  and 
in  being  willing  to  testify  all  she  knew  about  the  Convent, 
on  Buzzell’s  trial,  by  doing  which,  she  would  have  fore- 
gone all  pecuniary  advantage.  Can  the  reason  be  found 
in  the  odium  and  reproach  she  has  incurred  in  the  estima- 
tion of  many  respectable,  but  mistaken  individuals  whose 
good  opinion  she  would  not  lightly  esteem,  nor  heedlessly 
lose  — in  the  manner  in  which  her  good  sense  and  reputa- 
tion have  been  assailed,  and  her  own  condition  and  that  of 
her  connections  sneered  at  and  vilified  ? It  appears  to  us  un- 
deniable that  no  sufficient  reason  can  be  assigned  for  her 
eloping  from  the  Convent,  except  that  it  was  not  in  her 
power  to  leave  openly  — and  if  so,  it  must  have  been 
because  she  was  a witness  to  mal-practices,  which  the 
Superior  feared  to  have  known  to  the  world. 

We  had  some  remarks  to  make  upon  the  absurdity  of 
the  charge  of  u dissimulation,”  brought  against  Miss  R. 
by  the  Superior,  who  seems  to  suppose  that  Miss  R. 
although  surrounded  by  those  whom  she  considered  inimi- 
cal to  her,  and  desirous,  as  she  was,  to  quit  the  Convent, 
ought  to  have  revealed  all  her  intentions,  and  thereby, 
5 


50 


perhaps  kept  herself  in  perpetual  confinement.  But  we 
have  already  gone  beyond  our  intended  limits,  and  must 
draw  to  a close. 

Before  concluding,  however,  we  must  be  indulged  in  a 
few  reflections  upon  the  influence  of  Catholicism  on  this  j 
country.  We  fully  believe  that,  unless  great  care  be 
taken,  this  influence  will  be  very  injurious  to  our  institu- 
tions, both  civil  and  religious.  It  would  be  a work  of  su-  '■ 
pererogation  in  us,  to  show  the  absurdity  and  impiety  of  t 
many  of  the  Catholic  forms  and  dogmas.  That  was  done,  ! 
as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Luther,  — and  in  our  opinion,  it 
is  equally  unnecessary  to  prove  that  the  Catholic  religion 
could  not  prevail  to  any  considerable  extent  in  the  United 
States,  and  our  liberty  be  preserved.  For  what  is  the 
support  of  the  Catholic  religion  ? It  is  Ignorance  ; it  is 
Hostility  to  all  mental  improvement ; it  is  Superstition  ; j 
and  how  can  liberty  and  these  qualities  breathe  the  same 
air?  Knowledge  is  the  nutriment  of  freedom , — ignorance  ! 
of  slavery. 

The  character  of  the  Monasteries  and  Nunneries  in 
Europe  is  well  known.  They  are  described  as  being  the 
abodes  of  indolent  and  licentious  people  — the  nurseries  of 
vice.  We  do  not  say  that  this  description  can  be  proved 
to  apply  to  the  religious  establishments  of  the  Catholics  in 
this  country.  The  Papists  here,  being  in  a minority,  and 
opposed  by  public  opinion,  are  obliged  to  proceed  with 
secrecy  and  caution.  But  we  do  earnestly  ask  Protestant 
parents,  whether  they  are  justifiable  in  patronising  Con- 
vent schools,  and  thereby  lending  their  aid  and  counte- 
nance to  a religion  incompatible  with  our  institutions,  and 
to  the  foundation  of  establishments  that  may  become  the 
haunts  of  iniquity.  The  Attorney  General  of  the  Com- 
monwealth has  termed  the  burning  of  the  Convent  a stain 
upon  the  escutcheon  of  the  State,  and  said  that  the  “ chill 
of  fifty  winters  must  go  through  the  soul  of  him,  who, 


51 


standing  upon  Bunker’s  height  gazes  upon  its  black  and 
tottering  ruins.” 

Hereafter,  unless  due  care  be  taken,  as  the  American 
stands  upon  that  same  celebrated  height,  and  sees  Catholic 
establishments  scattered  in  every  direction  over  our  coun- 
try, — spots  upon  the  sun  of  our  prosperity,  — he  may  feel 
the  chill  of  rayless  and  perpetual  winter  — under  the  icy 
grasp  of  Catholic  oppression  ! Are  we  Americans,  and  are 
we  not  desirous  that  that  time  may  never  come  ? It  is  our 
solemn  duty  then,  to  be  watchful,  lest  the  fair  Temple  of 
our  Liberty  be  secretly  undermined. 


NOTES. 

1.  In  order  that  our  reference  to  the  Thermometer  on  the  15th  page,  may 
be  perfectly  understood,  we  mention,  though  it  may  be  thought  unnecessary, 
that  water  freezes  at  32°. 

2.  We  forgot  to  notice  the  statement  of  the  sisters  of  the  sick  nun,  in  the 
Appendix  to  the  Superior’s  Reply.  One  of  these  ladies,  if  we  may  believe 
Miss  Alden,  (See  letter  on  the  16th  page,)  gave  her  the  information,  at  least  eight 
months  before  Miss  R.’s  book  appeared,  on  the  strength  of  which  she  wrote  the 
(shall  we  say  scurrilous?)  letter  to  Judge  Fay.  Would  a person  careful  to 
speak  nothing  but  the  truth,  feel  authorized  by  mere  rumor,  to  give  such  infor- 
mation ? Besides,  (according  to  page  16th  of  the  Superior’s  Answer,)  they 
are  interested  in  the  success  of  the  Convent  school , — an  additional  reason 
why  their  word  should  be  received  with  caution. 


T 


' 


1 


/ 


* 

■ 

DATE  DUE 

z\ 

' 1996 

i 2g  | 

>37  Al 

l 

Mir  1 a in 

JyJ 

Wam  l 

5 Co  U i 

APR  * 5 

2005 

JUH  l 2 21 

109 

201-5503 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A.  | 

BOSTON  COLLEGE 


3 9031  01670375  3 


